Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — Victim Support Week

Mr. Miller: What contribution his Department has made to Victim Support week. [30337]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): The main event of last week was the launch of the new national telephone helpline called Victim Supportline. It was made possible by the Government's decision to increase Victim Support's annual grant by £1 million a year. Extra money has also gone towards improving front-line services for victims and witnesses. Those were also promoted during Victim Support week.

Mr. Miller: I am sure that the House will congratulate those involved in Victim Support on their tremendous work. Will my hon. Friend take into account the views of victims and ensure that they are fully informed during the progress of cases? Will he also look at the needs of the families of victims of road deaths and examine what is happening in other countries, especially Switzerland, in relation to such families' needs?

Mr. Michael: I support my hon. Friend's comments about the volunteers who do such excellent work. We certainly want the system to keep people much better informed about the progress of cases that involve them and we want to keep victims better informed. My hon. Friend gave a specific example and I should be interested to look at the case that he cites. Perhaps he could supply me with information. With colleagues at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, we want to do all that we can to recognise the damage to the families of victims of road incidents.

Sir Sydney Chapman: In commending the work of the Victim Support scheme and paying tribute to those who operate my local scheme in Barnet, may I ask the Minister whether he agrees that the best commitment that the Government could show to this worthwhile charity would be to continue to increase its funding, which I think has gone up from a derisory £5,000 in 1979 to £11.5 million last year?

Mr. Michael: I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's endorsement for the action of my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Prime Minister in increasing Victim Support's grant during the current financial year.

Oral Answers to Questions — Crime

Mr. Rammell: If he will make a statement on the proposed statutory role for local councils in tackling crime. [30338]

Mr. Michael: The Crime and Disorder Bill will create radical change by requiring local authorities and the police jointly to conduct an audit of local crime and disorder, to draw up a local strategy and to agree targets for cutting crime. This process will involve local people and a wide range of other key partners. Other changes will help cut youth crime and strengthen the powers of the courts.

Mr. Rammell: In my constituency, much good community safety work has been undertaken by the local council and the police working in partnership on issues such as closed circuit television and on developing policies to deal with racial harassment and domestic violence. The most recent development is a one-stop drop-in centre to provide advice and information for young people. All that has been achieved by good will. Does the Minister agree, however, that much more could be achieved if the principle of joint working were underpinned by statutory force?

Mr. Michael: Yes, and that is what we shall provide in the Crime and Disorder Bill, which the House will shortly have the opportunity to debate. A partnership between the police and each local authority and local community has been welcomed by all parties.

Mr. Clappison: The Minister will recall that, when shadow Home Secretary, his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister promised to provide more places in local authority secure accommodation. How many new places have been provided? Have any been provided?

Mr. Michael: I think that the hon. Gentleman is getting confused. What happened was that in February 1991 the Conservative Government promised to provide 171 additional places. That was later revised to 170, but they failed to provide them, and the places have still not been provided. We will keep our promises.

Oral Answers to Questions — Prison Population

Mr. Gordon Prentice: What steps he is taking to reduce the prison population. [30340]

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): Within the sentencing framework set by Parliament, who is sent to prison and for how long is a matter for the courts. Prison is the only appropriate punishment for many offenders. The Government are also committed to providing more effective and tougher community punishments.

Mr. Prentice: I hear what the Home Secretary says, but is there not a danger of the prison population spiralling out of control? The official Home Office mid-range projections take the prison population from 65,000 this year to 83,000 in seven years' time—which is double the 1992 level—and the top-range projection is for 93,000 prisoners. Sending all those people to prison costs the rest of us an arm and a leg, as a


top-security prisoner costs us £35,000 a year, and a category B or category C local prisoner costs us £17,000 a year. May I urge my right hon. Friend to do all that he can to bring down the prison population, as quickly as humanly possible, and to levels that are commonplace in the rest of the European Union?

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend must bear in mind the inheritance that we suffered from the Conservatives. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] Our levels of burglary, vehicle crime, robbery and assault are the highest in western Europe—higher, even, than those in the United States. Against that background, it is hardly surprising that our prison population is rising. However, there is no danger of the prison population getting out of control—per head of population, it has only recently reached the level in Scotland.

Mr. Quentin Davies: If the Government seriously want to reduce the prison population, would it not be a good idea to stop introducing an endless raft of unnecessary, bossy, nannying and tyrannical rules and regulations—progressively criminalising perfectly honest and honourable activities, from pistol shooting competitions to eating beef on the bone? In the light of yesterday's countryside rally, does the Home Secretary realise that, if he—not to mention his dreadful Government—goes much further along that road, and reduces the drink-driving limit and bans fox hunting, he will progressively bring the law into disrepute? Is it not about time that the Government thought before they regulated?

Mr. Straw: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the fox hunting Bill—the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill—is a private Member's measure. He knows also that there is overwhelming public support for the crime and disorder agenda that the Government are vigorously pursuing.

Mr. Grocott: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that, whenever he mentions the previous Government's legacy, he is met with jeers from the Conservative Benches? Does he recall, as I do, that for 11 years—from 1979, until she was thrown out in 1990—Mrs. Thatcher repeatedly blamed the previous Labour Government? Will he therefore continue blaming the previous Tory Government until at least 2008, when we can perhaps review the policy?

Mr. Straw: I concur with that. As I am a fair-minded Home Secretary—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that that has approbation from both sides of the House. As I am a fair-minded Home Secretary, we shall continue blaming the previous Government as long as it is justified for us to do so. The facts are that crime doubled under the previous Government, whereas the number of people convicted of those crimes fell by one third.

Mr. Alan Clark: Is not the most effective way of reducing the prison population not to prosecute wrongdoing? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the application of discretionary powers by the Metropolitan police in that respect? What input does his Department have on that application?

Mr. Straw: The previous Government's policy was not to prosecute wrongdoing—as the right hon. Gentleman

says—which is why crime rose. Far too many criminals felt that they could get away with committing crimes. I have no knowledge of what the right hon. Gentleman was referring to in particular, although I should be happy to receive a letter from him. He should nevertheless have caught up with the fact that decisions on prosecution are now made not by police but by the independent Crown Prosecution Service.

Oral Answers to Questions — Voluntary Sector

Mrs. Brinton: What measures he will bring forward to improve the relationship between the Government and the voluntary sector. [30341]

Mr. Michael: The Government will strengthen partnership between government and the voluntary sector. We are working towards a compact that will set out the principles that should govern the relationship. I am delighted to have the support of Ministers across the Government for that initiative.

Mrs. Brinton: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, which will certainly be welcomed not just in my constituency of Peterborough but in many constituencies where voluntary organisations are working very hard to combat social exclusion. Can he assure me that the compact will set out exactly what needs to be done in practical terms to make the partnership work and that it will be available to all organisations and not just those that shout the loudest?

Mr. Michael: The compact will establish the relationship and the consideration that the Government should give voluntary organisations—and vice versa—nationally and locally. My hon. Friend refers to social exclusion. The priority that the Government are giving the issue touches on the charitable object of many voluntary organisations and there has been a general welcome for the way in which the policy has developed.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: Does the Minister not understand that his expressions of support, and those of his right hon. Friend, for voluntary organisations and charities ring hollow? Does he not remember that, in last year's Budget, which was only a matter of months ago, the Government hit charities hard by undermining their pension funds so that volunteers' contributions had to be moved from the doing of good works to bolster pension schemes? If the Minister is serious about supporting voluntary organisations and charities, will he undertake to ensure that, in this year's Budget in a couple of weeks' time, they are reimbursed for that raid on their pension funds?

Mr. Michael: The right hon. Gentleman's intervention strikes me as a rather desperate attempt to drive a wedge between the Government and the voluntary sector. He will not succeed because many voluntary organisations find that, after years of trying to pursue their charitable objects under a Government who were not interested in most of their priorities, the present Government share their concern to improve society, so they are working in a totally different atmosphere.

Oral Answers to Questions — Prison and Probation Services

Mr. Cranston: What plans he has to ensure integration between the prison and probation services. [30342]

Siobhain McDonagh: What plans he has to integrate the prison and probation services. [30350]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Ms Joyce Quin): As my right hon. Friend announced last July, I am leading a prisons and probation review into the efficiency and effectiveness of the ways in which the two services work together. We shall be examining options for improving their performance as a basis on which to consult widely about the future of both services.

Mr. Cranston: Does my hon. Friend not agree that one of the advantages of the two services working together relates to public perception, since community sentences under the supervision of the probation service are too often perceived as a soft option? Does she agree that, by working together, the two services can change that perception and make community sentences a tough option?

Ms Quin: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Both services are very much concerned with public protection and reducing offending. By working more closely together, they will be able to find out better what works and provide a better service to the public.

Siobhain McDonagh: Given the separateness of the prison and probation services, and the antipathy within those organisations to working together, how can we ensure that the public's desire to see them working together will be met?

Ms Quin: So far during the review, both services have shown a great willingness to work together and address some of their differences in approach. I should also like to pay tribute to the work that they do jointly in delivering courses in prisons, where prison officers and probation officers work together.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Will the Minister commend activities in Surrey, where an extremely enlightened and hard-working probation service, working with the police, is making extremely good progress on punishment in the community? However, the vindictiveness of the financial settlement makes collaborative working in Surrey all the more difficult. Will the Minister look at the way in which the funding formulae hit Surrey, which is facing difficult decisions that had not been anticipated?

Ms Quin: I am happy to join the right hon. Lady in paying tribute to the Surrey probation service, which I visited recently to look at the Springboard project. However, I am astonished by her comments on funding. The settlement was drawn up by the Conservative Government of which she was a part. We are examining the future options in our comprehensive spending review.

Mr. Soley: Will my hon. Friend give a high priority to training in the prison and probation services? A higher priority for training is needed in the Prison Service.

Probation officers must always be able to recognise signs of child abuse, mental breakdown and possible violence, particularly when they are visiting homes. If we lose that, people will be put at risk.

Ms Quin: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Prison officers want their jobs to be more varied and challenging. Training is an important part of that. We are also addressing the vacuum left by the previous Government in relation to probation training. We have said that there should continue to be a professional qualification, which can offer a great deal to the criminal justice system.

Oral Answers to Questions — Disorder and Antisocial Behaviour

Mr. Coaker: What measures he is proposing to tackle disorder and antisocial behaviour. [30343]

Mr. Straw: There are tough new measures in the Crime and Disorder Bill to tackle such unacceptable conduct, which causes misery to so many communities. They include antisocial behaviour orders, child safety orders, local child curfews and statutory crime prevention partnerships between local authorities and the police.

Mr. Coaker: Will my right hon. Friend reassure constituents such as mine in Gedling that the measures in the Crime and Disorder Bill will become law as soon as possible? Antisocial behaviour and disorder on estates are making many people prisoners in their homes. Will my right hon. Friend reassure them that action will be taken to deal with the repeat offending that seems to be so common?

Mr. Straw: I give my hon. Friend that reassurance. Sadly, the previous Administration failed comprehensively to deal with such disorder. We pushed repeatedly for all-party agreement on such orders. I shall be interested to see whether, after 18 years of refusing to act, the Opposition back our proposals.

Miss Kirkbride: Does the Secretary of State have any advice for my constituent who is subject to visits to his farm by animal rights protesters because of his export of turkeys? Some of them are reasonable people who want to exercise their legitimate right to protest, but there are others who behave irresponsibly and abuse his grandchildren and his farm workers. He is at the mercy of such protesters, who come almost every week to abuse his staff. He has found that they cannot be dealt with under current law.

Mr. Straw: I have every sympathy with the hon. Lady's constituent. I should be happy to meet her to discuss the issue in further detail. I am aware of a similar situation just outside Witney. Some of the actions of the so-called animal rights protesters are outrageous. She will know that some of them have been convicted of offences that amount to terrorism. They call themselves animal rights terrorists and that is how they behave. The attitude of police forces varies. As the Thames Valley police has shown in response to the incidents near zWitney, there is no reason why effective action cannot be taken to ensure that people can go about their lawful duties, as they have every right to.

Mr. Mullin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a good deal of antisocial behaviour is caused by out-of-control youths with air weapons? Does he have any plans to review the ownership of air weapons?

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend will recall that in our evidence to the Cullen inquiry, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and I talked not about the banning of air weapons, for which we have no proposals, but about the need for better control over their use. I hope that Conservative Members share that concern. Like my hon. Friend, I personally see no possible purpose in people who live in high-density urban areas shooting air weapons out of back-bedroom windows at human, rather than animal, targets. We shall certainly address that. But we need to take one step at a time; we must get the firearms legislation fully implemented first.

Mr. Greenway: Why should anyone take seriously the Government's claim to support rural communities when they have cut funding for closed circuit television cameras to a paltry £1 million this year, just when market towns and large villages believe that it is their turn to receive support to install cameras to fight disorder and vandalism in their areas?

Mr. Straw: There is the widest possible support for this new Government's crime and disorder agenda, which is one of the many reasons why we did so well in many rural areas. As for the hon. Gentleman's main point, I simply congratulate him on his chutzpah and cheek in daring to complain about the levels of cash allocated for closed circuit television for next year, since those are the exact allocations that were agreed by his Government.

Jacqui Smith: I commend to my right hon. Friend the actions of a group of parents in Redditch, who have voluntarily organised a curfew for their children following some disorder last summer. Will he tell my constituents how the Government's plans will support such responsible community action?

Mr. Straw: I know a little of my hon. Friend's constituency, and visited it last year. I very warmly congratulate those parents. It is clear that almost every parent is backing our proposals for child curfew and child protection orders, recognising that parents, first, have to accept responsibility for their children.

Oral Answers to Questions — Private Prisons

Mr. Bob Russell: If he will make a statement on his plans for the future use of private prisons. [30345]

Ms Quin: On 19 June, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced that the Prison Service was to examine whether prisons managed by the private sector could be returned to direct management on value-for-money grounds, as well as exploring methods of using private finance to achieve value for money, with the public sector providing custodial services.

Mr. Russell: Will the Minister advise the House on whether she anticipates that, at the end of the Parliament, more of the Prison Service will be privatised? Does she agree with me and with the Home Secretary's words that

it is morally repugnant for people imprisoned by the state to be treated as little more than commodities for profit by private firms?

Ms Quin: Very similar questions were answered by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary at our first Home Affairs Question Time. Obviously, I cannot anticipate the outcome of the investigation which I have just announced, although a great deal depends on the value-for-money aspect to which I referred.

Mr. Bercow: In view of Ministers' earlier dogmatic and ideological opposition to private prisons, will the Minister tell the House when she first made a speech, wrote an article or issued a press release suggesting that there could be some merit in private prisons? Is there such an occasion? Can she name it? When was it?

Ms Quin: The process that I have announced, whereby the Prison Service, prison unions and people who have an interest are examining the issues, is the valuable one. We shall draw conclusions from it when the study is complete.

Oral Answers to Questions — Electoral Systems

Mr. Walter: How many different electoral systems will be in operation in the United Kingdom by May 2002. [30346]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): Taking into account all existing proposals, five.

Mr. Walter: I have been involved in a number of discussions with constituents over recent weeks about proposals for the European Parliament elections. My constituents are mesmerised when I go on to tell them about all the other proposed electoral systems. Will the Minister reassure the House that, if the Government bring forward proposals for this House, the essential link between a Member and an individual constituency will be preserved? Perhaps he could do the decent thing and reassure my constituents that there will be no change in the electoral arrangements for the House.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman must have missed the fact that Lord Jenkins's commission is currently looking at what might be an alternative system for electing the House of Commons. Once he has deliberated and come up with a proposal, we are committed to a referendum. The hon. Gentleman's constituents will then have the opportunity to look at what systems are on offer and, instead of listening to him, make up their own minds, which in my opinion would be wise.

Mr. Linton: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be a disaster if the Government tried to impose the same voting system on every tier of government? The different systems have not been introduced for any reason of self-interest—quite the reverse. It is the Conservative party which might otherwise be seriously underrepresented in the European Parliament and, indeed, not represented at all in the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh assembly.

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is right. There are several proposals to change the constitution of this


country in line with public opinion and, in respect of electoral systems, we are committed to an appropriate electoral system for each layer of government. At the end of the day, people appreciate that that is the best way of achieving these things.

Mr. Beith: Will the Minister remind the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) that three of those five systems were introduced by the Conservatives, including both the single transferable vote and the regional list system in Northern Ireland? Will he recognise that, in the next few days, his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has the opportunity to ensure that, in the European elections, there is a combination of fairness to voters in terms of the outcome of the election and the retention of a role for the voter in deciding which individual is elected by going for an open list system?

Mr. Howarth: The right hon. Gentleman is right to remind the House that the Conservative party introduced a number of different systems, most recently the d'Hondt system for the Northern Ireland peace forum. He will also remember that, until 1923, his own party was in favour of the first-past-the-post system. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made it clear that we are still listening to the debate on to the most appropriate divisor for the European Parliamentary Elections Bill and, in due course, he will make an announcement.

Ms Abbott: Does the Minister accept that the closed list system of proportional representation proposed for the forthcoming European elections is possibly the worst conceivable system of PR, combining as it does breaking the link between Members and their constituencies and taking away powers from local parties? Will he give the House an assurance that this is the first and last time that system will be used in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Lady has to understand—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hon. Friend."] My hon. Friend has to understand that parliamentary constituencies do not apply to the European Parliament in same way as, for example, she represents a parliamentary constituency. Increasingly, Europe is a Europe of the regions and the new proposed system will respond to that. As for the specific system, I have already pointed out that we are listening to representations—not least to those made in the House—and an announcement on the result of that will be made in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions — Electronic Tagging

Miss McIntosh: What savings in the prisons budget he estimates will accrue from the extension of electronic tagging. [30347]

Ms Quin: It is estimated that home detention curfew may avoid the need for expenditure on about 3,000 new prison places, which would have cost £90 million per year. Other uses of electronic monitoring, if applied nationally, could also impact on demand for prison places.

Miss McIntosh: Although we welcome the zeal of converts to electronic tagging, do the Government appreciate that it is better for the courts to decide who should be electronically tagged and which prisoners are

eligible for early release? Will the Minister agree to extend electronic tagging to child curfew orders, which the Home Secretary mentioned earlier, and to persistent sex offenders?

Ms Quin: Given that it is people who are coming to the end of their sentence who are eligible for home detention curfew, we believe that it is quite right for the decision to be taken by prison authorities, together with experts who can make the appropriate risk assessment.

Mr. Bermingham: I welcome tagging and anything else that reduces the number of people who are incarcerated in prison—sometimes for long periods, despite the fact that the punitive impact of a short sentence would be equally effective—but will my hon. Friend consider other methods, such as the reintroduction of suspended sentences, which were extremely effective in the past?

Ms Quin: We are considering such methods, but we believe that electronic monitoring can provide a structured transition from custody to release during which, we hope, it will help to stop people reoffending in future.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: Can the Minister assure the House that no prisoners serving sentences for rape, serious sexual offences or child abuse will be allowed out early under any tagging programme?

Ms Quin: As I have told the right hon. Gentleman before, the most important consideration is risk assessment. We are, in this instance, talking about people who are serving four years or fewer and who will be released anyway. We believe that we have a responsibility to make that release as structured as possible, but we shall be extremely careful about risk assessment in the cases that he mentions.

Oral Answers to Questions — Criminal Justice System (Delays)

Mr. Sheerman: What measures he is taking to tackle delays in the criminal justice system. [30348]

Mr. Straw: The Government are acting to tackle delay throughout the criminal justice system. The Crime and Disorder Bill provides for statutory time limits that will be tougher for young offenders than for adults, and tougher still for persistent young offenders.

Mr. Sheerman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that. I am sure that my constituents and people who want a Government of law and order are very happy that we have moved so quickly to implement what we said in our election manifesto. He knows better than most of the number of vested interests in the legal system, so will he be vigilant and keep a monitoring brief on judges, banisters, solicitors and the Crown Prosecution Service, all of which seem to have a vested interest in delay and delay, as that means more money for them?

Mr. Straw: I accept what my hon. Friend says. Not only are we keeping an eye on the vested interests, but we shall be setting them clear targets. A number of magistrates courts have already proved that our policy can be implemented. Teesside magistrates court, for example,


has introduced a fast-track system for young offenders to reduce the time between charges being made and any trial to six weeks—or 42 days—which more than halves the time that it usually takes to deal with persistent offenders. I congratulate Teesside on that.

Mr. Soames: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that justice delayed is justice denied, and that everything that he can do to speed up the dispensation of justice will be welcome? Will he and his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General consider carefully whether the Crown Prosecution Service has adequate financial resources? I recently visited the CPS local office in Horsham, which is doing an extremely good job, but there is no doubt that it is short of barristers and short of money. I should be grateful if he could tell me what he can do about that.

Mr. Straw: I shall certainly write to the hon. Gentleman on the specific point that he raises. He may know that a major inquiry into the running of the CPS by the former High Court judge Sir Ian Glidewell has been under way since just after the election. It will report shortly and, I believe, lead to major improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of the CPS.

Oral Answers to Questions — Criminal Justice System

Mr. Mackinlay: What plans he has to review his Department's responsibilities in relation to the criminal justice system. [30349]

Mr. Straw: As part of the comprehensive spending review, I am chairing a cross-departmental review of the criminal justice system, to consider ways in which the delivery of the Government's objectives for the criminal justice system as a whole can be improved. There are no plans to make changes in departmental responsibilities.

Mr. Mackinlay: Will my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary reflect on the fact that, when the Government's credentials as a modern and constitutionally reforming Administration come to be tested, one consideration will be whether they have been able to restructure the criminal justice system so as to make it much more answerable to the House of Commons? In addition to its core duties in relation to criminal justice, his Department is cluttered by other duties. Moreover, his criminal justice duties are shared with the Lord Chancellor, who combines the post of Minister, judge, Speaker of the House of Lords and interior designer. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a real case for having a Minister of justice who is answerable to the democratically elected House of Commons?

Mr. Straw: As I said, we have no plans to make changes in departmental responsibilities. I believe that we shall be judged at the next general election by whether we have delivered at a local level on our crime and disorder pledges.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: We all hear what the Home Secretary says, but we all saw Government Front Benchers furiously trying not to laugh their legs off at the Lord Chancellor. This is none the less a serious matter. Given the number of staff that the Lord Chancellor is

accumulating at vast public expense, when will the Government announce the setting up of a Department of justice at the expense of the Home Office?

Mr. Straw: I have always enjoyed the humour of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), and I have made it clear that there are no plans to make changes in departmental responsibilities. We believe that what matters is the ability of the three Departments involved in the criminal justice system—the Law Officers' Department, the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Home Office—to co-operate effectively, as we are doing, to deliver improved efficiency on the ground.

Oral Answers to Questions — Prisons (Drug Testing)

Mr. Timms: When he last carried out a review of the mandatory spot tests for drugs in prisons. [30351]

Mr. George Howarth: Mandatory drug testing is being reviewed within the broader assessment of the Prison Service drug strategy that I have commissioned. All relevant issues are being explored.

Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend will be aware that some prisoners and former prisoners have alleged that the current mandatory drug testing regime provides an incentive for prisoners using cannabis to switch to heroin, to reduce the chance of being caught. Is that allegation being considered in the current review? Should we not as quickly as possible give prisoners access to voluntary testing and other help, including follow-up help outside prison once their sentences are completed, so that those who want to break free from drug misuse can do so?

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the statistics suggesting that there could be a perverse incentive in the mandatory drug testing regime to move from cannabis to heroin are under examination. Sixty-three establishments are involved in various kinds of drug treatment and it is proposed that about £7.3 million be spent on the problem next year.

Mr. Green: Does the Minister acknowledge that there is a terrible air of complacency about his reply on this important subject? Will he at the very least assure the House that, when the inevitable review that he has set up finally reports, some action will emerge from it on the smuggling of drugs into prison, because we all know that that is how they get there? Without action on that front, any words from the Government will simply seem hypocritical.

Mr. Howarth: The mandatory drug testing system was introduced by the previous Government; there are difficulties with it, but we welcome it. When the review is completed, we will consider what is the most appropriate action. Let me make it absolutely clear, in case the hon. Gentleman needs any reassurance, that we do not think it acceptable that drugs are smuggled into prisons and taken by prisoners, so we will do what is necessary to stop it. In the meantime, we must have a clear picture of what exactly is going on, so that we can consider how to deal with it.

Oral Answers to Questions — Budget Allocation

Mr. Simon Hughes: What proportion of his budget is allocated to (a) prevention of crime and (b) detection and punishment of crime; and what plans he has to change this allocation. [30352]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): It is impossible to identify the overall level of funding for crime prevention. Although £19.3 million is specifically allocated, the police budget, which is more than £7.2 billion, and other resources also contribute to both crime prevention and detection.

Mr. Hughes: I am sure that the Minister will accept that the more we can prevent crime, the less we will have to spend on detection and prosecution. As part of the review that the Home Secretary has quite properly instigated, will two specific matters be considered?
First, if the figures are right, about a quarter of all prisoners have themselves been victims of abuse, so if we can prevent the physical and sexual abuse of youngsters we will be more likely to prevent their offending subsequently. Secondly, if we can find useful activities—not only work—for youngsters outside school, and outside school hours, we will prevent the huge amount of crime that is carried out between about 4 pm and 10 pm by 14 to 20-year-olds, who could be better employed doing other things.

Mr. O'Brien: All I can say is that I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: Will my hon. Friend take note of the situation faced by the police in West Yorkshire? When he considers the police budget, will he remember that the capping system has meant that the charge for band D properties in the area has been reduced by 57p per annum? That will have an effect on the monitoring and prevention of crime. Given the extra resources that have been allocated by the Home Office to crime prevention, the funding for West Yorkshire appears to be an anomaly. Will the Minister investigate that serious situation?

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I will investigate that important matter for my hon. Friend and write to him.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Has the Minister been able to ascertain what will be spent in real terms on new policing, or has there been a cut? Certainly, Dorset police believe that when they have paid for everything that goes up every year, such as pensions, they will have to make cuts. Local authorities are trying to help the police by, for example, putting in cameras, but they are now finding that they cannot even bid for town centre cameras, because there is no matching funding. Will the Minister consider that problem carefully?

Mr. O'Brien: Police expenditure has been targeted to rise by 3.7 per cent. and the figures are clear. On the subject of crime prevention, the Crime and Disorder Bill and the new crime reduction partnerships will ensure that the police are more closely involved with local councils in work on crime reduction. However, the hon. Gentleman must consider the whole budget. It would be wrong to

consider only the money allocated to crime prevention under a single budget head. Crime prevention has a role across billions of pounds of budgets, and the Government are committed to making crime prevention a priority across our whole budget.

Oral Answers to Questions — Crime Against Businesses

Ms Blears: What steps he is taking to combat crime against businesses, with particular reference to inner-city areas. [30353]

Mr. Michael: The Crime and Disorder Bill requires local authorities and the police together to conduct an audit of local crime and disorder and to develop a strategy to cut crime. They are required to involve the wider community, including the business community, in that process. We are also working with business to tackle specific problems, such as retail and car crime.

Ms Blears: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. In cities such as Salford it is crucial that businesses, which are the key to economic regeneration, feel safe and protected. I know it is difficult, but has my hon. Friend considered involving businesses in some of the community punishments, such as the reparation order, that make the people who commit crimes face their effects on the prosperity of the whole community?

Mr. Michael: Yes. My hon. Friend is right. I visited Milton Keynes recently, as did my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and saw the way in which the business community is productively engaged with the people who are involved in the correction of offenders. We visit various cities—my right hon. Friend will visit Salford on 2 April—and such visits give us the opportunity to discuss the issue with business. I am pleased by the way in which business is engaging with our agenda to cut crime.

Mr. Hawkins: The Minister will be aware that a number of crimes against businesses have, sadly, spread from inner-city areas to other urban areas. Several businesses in my constituency have recently been targeted by ram raiders. Will the Minister confirm that he is urgently liaising with police forces to tackle that serious crime against businesses?

Mr. Michael: Yes. In recent weeks, I have had several discussions with police forces about smaller town and rural crime. Those problems will be addressed by our proposals, because we need a partnership between the police, local authorities and the communities in smaller urban and rural areas as well as in the cities.

Oral Answers to Questions — Prison Medical Service

Helen Jones: What plans he has to improve the prison medical service. [30354]

Ms Quin: The Prison Service and the national health service have established a joint working group to advise Ministers on the options for improving prisoners' health care. The group will be looking in particular at whether


responsibility should be transferred to the NHS, as recommended by Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons.

Helen Jones: I thank the Minister for that reply, but does she agree that one of the main obstacles to improving the service is the lack of suitably qualified staff? As the Home Office's own figures show that, in a service with a large number of mentally disordered offenders, only 21 of 197 doctors are members of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and only 34 per cent. of health care managers are registered nurses, will she assure the House that the working party will consider, as a matter of urgency, the need to recruit more qualified staff into the prison medical service, and to provide an adequate career path to retain them in that service?

Ms Quin: My hon. Friend makes important points, and I pay tribute to her for the keen and detailed interest that she has taken in this matter. We are very keen to improve training in the prison health service, and the working group is considering that as one of its priorities. It is a very important issue to make progress on if we are really to respond to the recommendations that the chief inspector made in his report "Patient or Prisoner?".

Oral Answers to Questions — Alcohol (Young People)

Mr. Bradshaw: What steps he is taking to reduce the number of young people who engage in under-age consumption of alcohol. [30356]

Mr. George Howarth: The Government are committed to tackling under-age drinking. Our statement of 17 July last year, a copy of which is in the Library, set out our views on the action needed by all concerned parties to tackle alcohol abuse by young people under the age of 18.

Mr. Bradshaw: Following the Minister's visit to Exeter last week, he will be aware of the great concern locally about the phenomenon known as the booze cruise, which exploits the current loophole in the law and allows alcohol to be sold to under-age children as long as they are on a moving boat. Does not that fly in the face of our desire to curb under-age drinking, and what is he going to do about it?

Mr. Howarth: As recently as last week, my hon. Friend and I visited his constituency to talk to people who had been involved in such cruises. I am looking very carefully at what all the people who were worried about that issue said, and considering what action will be appropriate. One aspect that we can look at immediately is whether the operator concerned is in breach of his sailing licence.

Mrs. Lait: Further to that, does the Minister share my concern that under-age drinkers have access to cheap alcohol because of the great prevalence of bootlegged and smuggled alcohol? Does he agree that the multi-disciplinary approach to stemming that tide of alcohol is the best one possible, and will he guarantee that police forces involved in trying to stem that tide will receive the resources that they need?

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Lady is clearly right. As any of us know from our own constituencies, there is a

problem in that people go abroad, bring back various forms of alcohol and sell it to young people. I agree that a multi-disciplinary or multi-agency approach is a very good way of tackling that problem, and we are committed to such an approach. It shows the value of working in partnership to try to eradicate such problems.

Oral Answers to Questions — Human Rights Bill

Mrs. May: If parish councils are among those organisations whose acts and omissions it is intended should be able to be challenged under the Human Rights Bill. [30357]

Mr. Mike O'Brien: Although it will be a matter for the courts, we think it likely that parish councils will be regarded as public authorities.

Mrs. May: I thank the Minister for that reply, although it gives some cause for concern in the following respect.
The Government have already had to undertake reviews of the application of the Human Rights Bill in two important areas—its implications for the press and for the Churches—and the Home Secretary has undertaken to consult in those two areas because the Government have discovered that the Bill's implications may not be what they originally thought that they would be. Therefore, will the Government now accept that, as I believe, there is a very real need to review the way in which the Human Rights Bill will affect other public authorities, such as parish councils, which form such an important part of our village community, and will the Minister undertake to consult and review the implications for those important parts of our village communities?

Mr. O'Brien: The Bill does not change the substance of convention rights; it only changes access to them in our courts. Broadly, we wish to ensure that all bodies for whose actions the United Kingdom Government are answerable are treated as public authorities under the Bill. The Government are committed to bringing people's rights home from Strasbourg, whereas most Tories appear to want to keep power under the European convention on human rights across the channel, in Strasbourg. The question needs to be asked: why do the Conservatives seek to deny people access to their rights, and why are they so determined to keep power in Strasbourg?

Fiona Mactaggart: Does my hon. Friend agree that giving everyone in the United Kingdom access to local jurisdiction over human rights helps to bring people together? Does he share my view that it is perturbing to hear people pressing for sectional interests to get a pass out of the Human Rights Bill—which of course they will not get, because we have an international treaty obligation in that regard? We should encourage people in the Churches, the media and local authorities of all kinds, including parish councils, to recognise that they have a responsibility to respect the human rights of others.

Mr. O'Brien: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Bill will ensure that there is greater respect for human rights in this country, and will raise Britain's status in the world as a country that respects human rights.

Mr. Gibb: Given the limited budgets of parish councils and the limited scope for parish councils to engage in


abusing human rights—certainly in my constituency—is there not a case for specifically excluding parish councils from that ludicrous legislation?

Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand that the convention currently applies to public authorities anyway. We are not changing the substance of that. We are ensuring that people have greater access to their rights. For the life of me I do not understand why Opposition Members are so opposed to allowing British citizens access in their own courts to their own rights.

Oral Answers to Questions — Internet (Racist and Anti-Semitic Material)

Mr. Dismore: If he will make a statement concerning the use of the internet to spread racist and anti-Semitic propaganda. [30358]

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The Government deplore the distribution of racist material via the internet. Provided that it falls within our jurisdiction, material passing over the internet is subject to the same laws as material distributed by other means.

Mr. Dismore: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are more than 600 anti-Semitic and racist sites on the internet, many of which promote holocaust denial? The internet is readily accessible to young people. Bearing in mind the transnational nature of the internet, will he take the opportunity of Britain's European Union presidency to raise the problem with our European partners and to work with them to find a way of tackling this growing menace?

Mr. O'Brien: Indeed, we are already doing that. We condemn such material on the internet. The National Criminal Intelligence Service has been in close liaison with other countries to combat internet abuse, and the G7 action plan on high-tech crime commits us to developing closer links to combat internet crime even more effectively.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Is the Minister aware of the related problem of defamation or libel on the internet? As he observed, the problem is one of jurisdiction. Does he realise that it is possible to defame people in the foulest terms and for them to have no remedy, if the internet service provider is situated abroad? When he undertakes discussions with his European colleagues on racism and anti-Semitism, will he also discuss the problem of defamation or libel?

Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman is right. It is increasingly being recognised what an impact the internet can have on the lives of all of us, and on crime and civil torts such as defamation. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary discussed these matters in December with G8 colleagues. As the discussions move forward, the international community will increasingly realise that the only way to tackle these issues is through international co-operation.

Oral Answers to Questions — Young Offender Teams

Mr. Linton: What powers he intends to give to the proposed young offender teams; and if he will make a statement. [30360]

Mr. Michael: The Crime and Disorder Bill places duties rather than powers on youth offending teams. The teams will co-ordinate youth justice services in their area. They will play a key role in working with young offenders in the community from the point of arrest to completion of sentence.

Mr. Linton: Does my hon. Friend agree that youth offending teams will have to work hard to re-establish the credibility of cautions, given that many young offenders receive up to six or seven cautions? Does he support the work of the Thames Valley police, who have turned the caution from a five-minute formality into something more like an hour-long ordeal in what they call restorative justice?

Mr. Michael: I certainly commend the actions of the Thames Valley police in encouraging young people who are being cautioned to understand the damage that they have done to others. The credibility of the caution system has been completely undermined in recent years. That is why we are replacing it with a final warning system. Not only will young people be told that their offending must stop but there will be intervention, action and community involvement for them and their families in order to stop their pattern of offending.

Oral Answers to Questions — Antisocial Behaviour

Mr. Amess: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of ways of dealing with antisocial behaviour. [30361]

Mr. Michael: Antisocial behaviour can grow out of control unless it is nipped in the bud—particularly with young offenders. Those problems have grown out of control in recent years. This Government have acted swiftly to reform the youth justice system to make young people face up to the consequences of their own behaviour and to make them realise that the most effective way to deal with antisocial behaviour is to be firm, fair and swift.

Mr. Amess: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that at times the whole country seems to be covered in graffiti—whether they are on road signs, on the tube or on walls? There is a particular problem in Chalkwell ward in my constituency of Southend, West—a ward that the Conservatives won from the Liberal Democrats last week. Will the Minister tell the House what effective measures are in place to apprehend those vandals who continually indulge in antisocial behaviour through acts of graffiti?

Mr. Michael: I am not sure which of those two parties the hon. Gentleman blames for the graffiti problem. We intend to nip things in the bud by encouraging partnership between police and local authorities in order to recognise problems as they begin to grow. We will not allow problems to develop—as has happened in recent years—to the point where it is impossible to put the genie back in the bottle. We intend to tackle those problems.

Points of Order

Mr. Michael Ancram: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As the guardian of the interests of Back Benchers, you will be aware that it is traditional to have a St. David's day debate around 1 March, when Welsh Members of Parliament may raise any issues relating to Wales. I am sure that it will not have escaped your notice that this year there is no arrangement or provision for such a debate. Today we shall consider the remaining stages of the Government of Wales Bill in Committee, which is hardly the same thing.
My point of order concerns whether you have received any explanation of why there is no such debate. If not, is the absence of a St. David's day debate not a massive and calculated insult to Wales? Does it not signal the beginning of the cynical and deliberate marginalisation of Welsh Members in the House that we predicted would follow devolution? Madam Speaker, as you are the defender of Back-Bench interests—not least those of Welsh Members—is that not something that you deplore?

Madam Speaker: The business of the House is not a matter for me: the conduct of business of the House is my responsibility. This matter should have been referred to the usual channels some weeks ago. Indeed, it should have been pressed on the Leader of the House last Thursday during business questions. However, I notice that the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who leads for the Opposition in considering the Government of Wales

Bill, is proudly wearing his daffodil. I must be even-handed and note that the Secretary of State for Wales is doing likewise.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Whenever an international court rules against a country, it is surely a matter of some urgency and concern. Have you received any request from the Crown Office in Edinburgh or from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office seeking to make a statement of explanation about the ruling against our country, by 13 votes to two, brought down by the international judges in relation to Lockerbie? Has any such request been made?

Madam Speaker: I must inform the hon. Gentleman that no request of that nature has been put to me. To the best of my knowledge, no Minister is seeking to make a statement on that matter today.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

NORTHERN IRELAND

That the draft Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 (Code of Conduct) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 23rd February, be approved.

That the draft Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 (Procedural Rules) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 23rd February, be approved.

That the draft Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 (Guidelines) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 23rd February, be approved.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Government of Wales Bill

[7TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee [Progress, 25 February].

[MR. MICHAEL J. MARTIN in the Chair]

New clause 40

FORESTRY COMMISSIONERS' FINANCES

'.—(1) The provision of funding for the exercise by the Forestry Commissioners of their functions in relation to Wales shall be the responsibility of the Assembly.
(2) What subsection (1) requires of the Assembly is that it shall provide such funding as the Assembly considers appropriate for the exercise by the Forestry Commissioners of their functions in relation to Wales.
(3) In deciding what funding it considers appropriate to provide for the exercise by the Forestry Commissioners of their functions in relation to Wales, the Assembly shall have regard in particular to what it considers those Commissioners need to spend in order effectively to discharge their functions in relation to Wales.
(4) The Assembly shall before the beginning of each financial year of the Assembly consult the Forestry Commissioners about the funding it is to provide for them in that financial year; and in determining the amount of that funding the Assembly shall take account of the Forestry Commissioners' estimates of—

(a) what they will need to spend in that financial year in order effectively to discharge their functions in relation to Wales, and
(b) the income which they will receive in that financial year and be entitled to apply towards meeting their expenditure on the exercise of their functions in relation to Wales.

(5) Schedule (Forestry Commissioners) (which makes provision consequential on this section) has effect.'.—[Mr. Ron Davies.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ron Davies): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new schedule 1—Forestry Commisioners.
Government amendments Nos. 542 to 544.

Mr. Davies: I made it clear on Second Reading that I would table amendments about forestry in Wales, to combine the advantages that come from the Forestry Commission retaining an overall strategic role for forestry in Great Britain, with our aim that the Forestry Commission should be answerable for its operations in Wales to the National Assembly for Wales.
Forestry is important to the economy and environment of Wales. At 31 March 1997, the forest area stood at 247,000 hectares, or 12 per cent. of the total area of Wales, of which the Forestry Commission owned 120,000 hectares. Current production levels represent 15 per cent. of the British total. The latest figures suggest that 4,750 people employed in Wales are dependent on forestry, including 1,270 employed by the Forestry

Commission, and more than 1,700 employed in wood processing industries, in which Wales has benefited from substantial investment.
Forestry can also provide farmers with an opportunity to diversify farm business through woodland planting as an alternative to agricultural production. Well-designed forests can provide high-grade landscape and wildlife habitats, and can be used to advantage in the reclamation of derelict sites, and provide excellent recreational opportunities.
The Government are not proposing the establishment of a separate Forestry Commission for Wales.
The Government amendments will ensure that, in future, the assembly will have responsibility both for setting policy in respect of forestry in Wales and for funding the activities of the Forestry Commission in relation to Wales.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Is my understanding correct that responsibility for the Forestry Commission—a UK-wide body—in relation to Wales will transfer from the Secretary of State for Scotland to the Welsh assembly? For the past 10 or 20 years, the Forestry Commission has been anomalous, in that it is the only body with a remit outside Scotland for which the Secretary of State for Scotland has ultimate departmental responsibility. Will my right hon. Friend go into detail about the relationship between the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh assembly in respect of forestry?

Mr. Davies: As my hon. Friend will know, with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I currently have responsibility for all forestry matters. My hon. Friend is correct in his understanding that, post-devolution, the responsibility that I currently exercise will devolve to the Welsh assembly, and the responsibility currently exercised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will devolve to the Scottish Parliament.
On matters that operate GB-wide, it will be necessary for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the representative of the Welsh assembly, and the appropriate Minister in the Scottish Parliament to agree. It will be open to the Scottish Parliament, because it will have jurisdiction in this matter, to legislate by means of primary legislation. It will be open to the Scottish Parliament to decide to introduce further changes. My hon. Friend is correct in his understanding. If he will bear with me, I shall deal with this point in a moment.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: A number of my constituents work at the Forestry Commission's headquarters in Edinburgh, and there is real concern and a lack of clear understanding about their future. I am trying to be constructive about this, but can some document be placed in the Library fairly soon, outlining in detail precisely what the thinking is, because there are quite a number of worried people? They are worried about whether they will have to move their homes yet again, having recently moved north to Edinburgh. They are asking, "Do we have to move south, or somewhere else?" Families' futures are very much at stake here.

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend raised that matter on Second Reading, when he asked me particular questions


about the likely employment consequences for people in his constituency. Later in my remarks, I want to answer fairly specifically some of the questions that my hon. Friend asked. However, I take this early opportunity to assure him that there is nothing in the Bill that will in any way prejudice the livelihood, or the opportunity for continued employment within the present work force, of my hon. Friend's constituents. As I said in reply to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), the Scottish Parliament will have jurisdiction in this matter. No one can foretell what it might want to do in future.
New clause 40 deals with the devolution of responsibility for funding. The Forestry Commission's funding is currently provided from a single vote approved by the House of Commons. Discussions are in progress on the appropriate transfer of resources into the Welsh block as a result of a significant shift of responsibility. At present, the commissioners' functions relate to Great Britain as a whole.
Paragraph 1 of the new schedule accordingly contains an order-making power for me to provide for the separate exercise, in relation to Wales, of the commissioners' functions, and for their functions to be exercised differently in respect of Wales. If an order under paragraph 1 amends Acts of Parliament, it will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That is the purpose of amendments Nos. 542 to 544, to clause 144.
I currently have wide-ranging powers in respect of the commissioners enabling me to direct the exercise of their functions in relation to Wales. As I explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West, I exercise these powers jointly with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture. These powers will be transferred to the assembly and made separately exercisable with respect to Wales in the transfer order under clause 22.
The forestry commissioners have powers to regulate activities in their forests. They may also make regulations to prevent the introduction into Great Britain of, for example, forestry pests and diseases.
Paragraph 2 of the new schedule provides for such subordinate legislation, where it contains only provisions relating to Wales, to be subject to procedures in the assembly instead of in Parliament. The overall effect is that the assembly will approve the commissioners' subordinate legislation.
Paragraph 3 of the new schedule provides that the status of the commissioners as a Government Department and the status of their staff—the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—are not affected by these changes. I take this opportunity to tell the Committee that, in my view, these amendments in themselves are most unlikely to reduce the number of staff employed by the Forestry Commission. It will remain a Great Britain body, and any changes to this arrangement would require primary legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow raised that point on Second Reading. Obviously, as I have said, we cannot predict how the assembly will choose to exercise its functions, including that of funding the commissioners, but the drafting of new clause 40 ensures that, if the assembly wishes to exercise its functions in a certain way, it must have a proper dialogue with the commissioners.
The arrangements for Scotland are broadly similar, although the details will be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. They will differ from those for Wales, because of the different structure of the Scotland Bill, and in particular because it is proposed that the Scottish Parliament should have legislative competence over forestry.
If the Scottish Parliament were to legislate to create a separate forestry commission for Scotland, the Government would need to reconsider the issue, and in particular to decide whether to retain the commission on a Wales and England basis or whether to create separate bodies. As I have said, such changes would require primary legislation.

Sir Sydney Chapman: I wish this matter to be clarified: if and when the Bill is enacted, and any Member of this place wishes to ask a question or seek information about the Forestry Commission working in Wales, for example, would he or she table a question to the right hon. Gentleman, to the Secretary of State for Scotland or to the Minister of Agriculture, or would he or she not be able to table a question?

Mr. Davies: I say to the hon. Gentleman, in the gentlest possible way, that it is a question not of whether the Bill goes through, but of when. Last weekend, the leader of the Conservative party made the position absolutely clear. My understanding is that his party is now in favour of devolution. I assume that the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) will lead his troops into the Lobby in support of Government policy.
It would be inappropriate for me to comment on which questions Madam Speaker would deem to be in or out of order, because I would be trespassing on matters for which I am not responsible. My current responsibilities will transfer to the assembly, and where those powers need to be exercised jointly, they will be so exercised by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh assembly.
The Table Office or Madam Speaker could advise the hon. Gentleman on tabling a parliamentary question to a Minister in this House who would answer on those broad policy matters. To influence the implementation of detailed policy in Wales, the hon. Gentleman would have to join the happy and growing band of Welsh Conservatives who will seek election to the assembly. Now that he has expressed an interest, he must look for what passes as a safe seat in Wales, although finding one may be difficult.

Mr. Michael Ancram: I am interested to hear the Secretary of State singing the praises of the Welsh assembly and inviting my colleagues to stand for election. Will he stand for election to the Welsh assembly?

Mr. Davies: In fact, I suggested to the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman)—

Mr. Nigel Evans: Answer the question.

Mr. Davies: I shall certainly answer now. I said that the hon. Gentleman should try to find a safe seat; if I were to stand for the Welsh assembly, I would not have as much difficulty finding one as he would.
Paragraph 4 of new schedule 1 deals with the forestry commissioners' receipts. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Devizes has spent the past month or so berating me for arrogance; now he chunters from a sedentary position and accuses me of being coy. The transition from brutishness—I am supposed to have cast aside public and political opinion in Wales—to coyness is remarkable.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Davies: Of course. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's question will bring me back to the matter of the Forestry Commission.

Mr. Dafis: We are speculating about Conservative intentions, and the Secretary of State will be as intrigued as I am by the proposal of the leader of the Conservative party for a more equal pattern of devolution within the United Kingdom. Does that not imply that there should be a Parliament in Wales with powers equal to those of the Scottish Parliament, and, further, that such a Parliament should have the power to establish a forestry commission for Wales? Would that not be an excellent idea, because forestry is an important industry in Wales and has many distinctive qualities that should be addressed at an all-Wales strategic level?

Mr. Davies: The idea might be excellent, but it is outwith Government policy, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is to transfer to the assembly the powers that I currently exercise. He will not be surprised if I describe devolution as a process. It is for those who come after, in the assembly and in the House of Commons, to decide whether to modify the powers of the Welsh assembly. I am not proposing that; I am proposing sensible and practical arrangements for the transfer to the assembly of my current forestry responsibilities.
I was referring to paragraph 4 of new schedule 1, which deals with the Forestry Commission's receipts. The measure has been drafted to allow the assembly to choose whether to fund the commission's activities in Wales on a net or gross basis—that is, to decide whether the commission should retain its operating income to help it to meet its own expenditure.
We must also recognise that the commission's forestry assets in Wales have been built up using United Kingdom taxpayers' money.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: We have paid for them.

Mr. Davies: Paragraph 4 provides an overriding power for the Treasury to direct that certain receipts, such as those arising from major asset sales, should be returned to the Consolidated Fund.
The right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) was right to say that we had paid for the assets. That is why I say that a balance must be struck. I assume that, if the Forestry Commission disposed of certain assets to assist its annual operations, the asset sales would be retained by the commission. In the event of a major

act of privatisation, however, the Treasury would understandably want to retain the right to ensure that the contribution of United Kingdom taxpayers as a whole was properly safeguarded.
Paragraphs 5 to 9 deal with the accounts and audit arrangements. The Forestry Commission will produce separate accounts for Wales, which will be audited by the Auditor General for Wales. He or she will also be able to carry out value-for-money studies, and the Comptroller and Auditor General will retain access rights. Paragraph 10 provides for the forestry commissioners to produce an annual report about their activities in Wales, and for it to be laid before and published by the assembly.
The Government amendments devolve to the assembly responsibility for funding the forestry commissioners' activities in Wales, and make the commissioners properly accountable to the assembly.

Mr. Evans: The new clause, new schedule and amendments deal with an aspect of rural Wales that needs to be protected. They deal with our natural environment—trees, plants and wildlife, conservation and preservation, jobs and tourism, recreation and nature, and our ancient woodlands and forests.
The rural community feels threatened. Yesterday, 284,000 people marched here in London, crying out in frustration and fear that their voice was not being heard. Many demonstrators travelled from Wales to be here, and I hope that the Secretary of State—who was not on the march—was at least able to hear what they said. They were good-natured, but they were extremely frustrated. Large numbers turned out from all parts of Wales to join yesterday's demonstration, because they care for the countryside. I assume that that is what new clause 40 purports to do as well, and I shall ask a number of questions about it towards the end of my speech.
The Forestry Commission has a profound effect on our land. It was established in 1919 as an answer to first world war deforestation. In fact, deforestation had been going on for some time. At the turn of the century, only 5 per cent. of our land was forested; today, thanks to the commission's work, that percentage has more than doubled.
Forests are vital, not only for their value as timber but for their natural beauty and their part in conservation and recreation. The nation's forests need protection from, for instance, disease. The commission's research division is very important in that regard, and I shall want to know how it will be ensured that that research function will be properly protected in Wales under the new arrangements.
We need to prevent the reduction of crops by pests. We also need research into ways of increasing the productivity of forests, and the establishment of forests on difficult sites, if areas throughout Wales are to benefit. The conservation of rare and endangered species is important, as is the protection of our ancient and semi-natural woodlands.
The Forestry Commission's research is mainly done in house, but it also commissions outside work. We shall need to know how that will be done under the new arrangements, and what impact the assembly will have in directing key commissioning in certain areas. As the Secretary of State said, the commission has a large staff, and we shall need to know more about how staff will function after the changes. The commission also has an


international impact. Will the assembly have a say in some of the international commitments in which we are involved on behalf of the commission?
Forests and woodlands support much of the rural economy, and they are environmentally and socially important. The White Paper entitled "A Working Countryside for Wales" spoke of the economic role of forestry and of the Government's aim to increase Welsh woodland by about 50 per cent. by 2050. Are the commitment and the target still operative, and how will they be affected by the proposed changes?
In January 1996, the Government's panel on sustainable development, which was chaired by Sir Crispin Tickell, spoke of the need to draw up a national forestry strategy that was supported by regional strategies containing targets that were related to the main economic, environmental and social benefits that forestry could provide. The incentives needed to meet those targets were identified. Will the relationship with regional strategies remain the same? What will be the impact on the Forestry Commission's national picture?

Mr. Ron Davies: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he raises these matters. I do not want to be too brutal with him, but I have to say that many of the issues he raises are policy matters, on which the assembly and the Scottish Parliament will decide. We are debating structures—the way in which my current powers will pass to the assembly. It is not for me to decide how the assembly will formulate and implement its policies—unless I seek election to it. Those are matters for the assembly.

Mr. Evans: We can tell that the Secretary of State is seriously considering whether to move from this place to the assembly in 1999. I do not want to be brutal with him, but I hope that he decides to go to the assembly, because not many Labour Members have shown themselves keen to move there from Westminster. Perhaps he can lead the rush of his Back Benchers. [Interruption.] I shall not seek election to the assembly. I suspect that the people of Ribble Valley would not wish to have representation there.

Mr. Davies: How on earth can the hon. Gentleman square that stupefying statement with the comment over the weekend by his party leader that the Conservative party wants to make the assembly work? How on earth will it work without the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Evans: I, too, find that a difficult question.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Perhaps we could get back to new clause 40.

Mr. Evans: We shall have to leave the question unanswered, and return to the debate on the new clause.
I hear what the Secretary of State says. It is important to look not only at the policy functions that are to be devolved to the assembly but at the national strategy, and how it will weigh with what the assembly wishes to do. I shall shortly come to the funding arrangements. I assume that the Forestry Commission will wish to

continue its important consultations with local communities on such matters as planting and felling. It is important for it to carry on with its policy of ensuring that, where necessary, there are prosecutions for illegal felling, and warnings in less serious cases. It should enforce the restocking of illegally felled areas.
I have spoken about only some of the Forestry Commission's work, because it has an important and diverse role. The commission and the timber trade could do much for Wales. We import £7.5 billion-worth of wood materials and manufactures, and export £2.3 billion-worth. That leaves a gap of more than £5 billion. That shows the potential, and if Wales can exploit that, it will be an important boost to the Welsh economy.
My fears about changes to the Forestry Commission centre on the factionalism that may break out if the Welsh assembly pursues one route when a national strategy dictates that the Forestry Commission will pursue another route. We must ensure that both bodies work together absolutely, with one policy and with the same priorities.
The Forestry Commission's funding arrangements will be vital. The Secretary of State for Wales said that Ministers are currently talking about how much money will be provided in the block grant, part of which the assembly will provide to the Forestry Commission. However, we have been given no assurances on how much money will be earmarked for the Forestry Commission. Moreover, the money that is provided to the assembly for the commission will be only notional, and it will not be ring-fenced. The Welsh assembly will decide what priority to place on the Forestry Commission's work.
4 pm
The Welsh assembly may not necessarily say, "The Forestry Commission is an easy target; we'll cut its money." The assembly—perhaps because of the Committee's debate on sustainable development, on 25 February—may take the opposite view, and decide that the Forestry Commission's work is vital. It may therefore decide to spend more money on the commission than the Treasury had originally notionally allocated.
We must get the Forestry Commission's funding right, especially as so many competing demands will be placed on the assembly. As hon. Members have said during the Bill's passage, the assembly will have to determine how to order its priorities. Last Wednesday, for example, in the Committee debate on the assembly's role in promoting business in Wales, "business" was interpreted very widely. The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) also mentioned the tin can that will be rattling outside the Welsh assembly, and the inevitable calls that the assembly will face for all sorts of money for all sorts of worthy projects. The Forestry Commission will be only one of those worthy projects.
There is enormous ignorance of the Forestry Commission's good work, of the depth of its remit and of the vital nature of its role. In future debates on whether money should go to education, to social services or to the Forestry Commission, my fear is that the commission will be an easy target for Members of the Assembly, and that it will suffer cuts. Such cuts


cannot be made currently, because the national budget allocates the commission's funds. After devolution, because of competing interests, the assembly could decide to downgrade the Forestry Commission's role.
I assume that the Secretary of State is involved in negotiations on the funding arrangements. We know that there will be—although the Bill does not mention it—a type of Barnett formula in Wales, which the Secretary of State has assured us will apply after devolution. Will such a Barnett-type formula be devised to fund the work in Wales of the Forestry Commission, so that the definite needs of Wales are emphasised, and the funds allocated to the Forestry Commission are not simply divided into three?

Mr. Ron Davies: The hon. Gentleman's earlier interpretation is broadly correct: the assembly will have responsibility for deciding whether to increase or decrease the resources going to forestry. There is nothing exceptional in that responsibility, as that is the importance of devolution. Furthermore, the assembly will occasionally want to reassess its priorities in, for example, education, the environment and the health service. Any Secretary of State currently has that discretion, and it is one that the assembly will enjoy. He was therefore correct in that assertion.
On the hon. Gentleman's latter, specific question, I am currently in the process of discussions with my colleagues in the Government to determine how the Forestry Commission's budget can be disaggregated. I will want to ensure that the Welsh assembly gets its fair share of the disaggregated Forestry Commission budget once the new financial arrangements apply. It will then be a matter for the Forestry Commission to decide whether, by using additional money from the block grant, to supplement the resources that will provided to it by disaggregation of the existing Forestry Commission budget.

Mr. Evans: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. He will appreciate that we in Wales are interested in ensuring that we get our fair share. I was wondering whether special needs, tasks or projects within Wales would be able to get more. Will there be some form of Barnett formula after devolution?

Mr. Davies: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman yet again, but his two points are inconsistent. He cannot suggest that there should be a Barnett formula and then ask for special consideration. The two positions are mutually exclusive. However, I can assure him that, during the discussions about the disaggregation of the budget, I shall press as hard as I can to ensure that the particular interests of Wales are reflected in the financial settlement.
I share the hon. Gentleman's great admiration and respect for the Forestry Commission, and attach the same importance as he does to its work. It has done a superb job over the years. I am glad that it is now following better policies than it did several decades ago, although not necessarily in the past decade.

Mr. Evans: Under several Governments, I presume. It is important that the Forestry Commission gets it right, but it needs resources.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) mentioned his concern about his constituents who are employed by the Forestry Commission. The Secretary of State said that there would not necessarily be any reduction in staff because of the changes. I wonder whether additional staff will be required, because of the way the budgets will be allocated and because there will be more of a regional bent to the way in which the Forestry Commission will work in future. If extra staff are required and the resources are not increased, its task will not be as well fulfilled. I would be interested to know whether, as a result of the changes, the Forestry Commission is likely to need extra staff.
I spoke earlier about the goal of 50 per cent. more woodland by the year 2050. Is it the Secretary of State's understanding that the same targets will exist? Will the Welsh assembly be able to alter that target to a greater or lesser extent?

Mr. Davies: indicated assent.

Mr. Evans: We are dealing with a vital chunk of devolution, and a major change. We want to ensure, therefore, that the assembly is given not only the resources, but the knowledge of how important it is that the money is not channelled off to meet other priorities. The assembly must understand the importance of using the money it will receive for the particular task at hand.
The Secretary of State also mentioned sales—whether some of the proceeds could be given back to the Forestry Commission to use in pursuit of its targets within Wales, whether the assembly could take any of that money, and how much could be retained by the Treasury. Will he clarify exactly how the system will work? It all sounds very vague, and as if the Treasury will be able to step in.
We know that the demands on the Treasury are constantly rigorous, and that it is always keen to ensure that it gets its fair share of the money. How will it be worked out? Will it be through a concordat or a general understanding, or will there be a more specific definition of what is a major sale and what is a minor one? Obviously, the Forestry Commission is constantly buying and selling, so we are talking about rather large sums of money. Of course, privatisation would involve an enormous sum of money.
Will the Secretary of State say a bit more about the various roles and where the money will end up? Could the proceeds of sales be siphoned off from the Forestry Commission to the assembly? If so, given the priorities that the assembly will set itself, it may wish to use some of the money for other projects, so it would not be reinvested into the Forestry Commission's tasks and targets.

Mr. Davies: It is probably best to deal with these issues as we go along, rather than trying to deal with them all at the end—if that is all right with you, Mr. Martin.
The hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing that we should ring-fence the Forestry Commission budget. It would then be both a ceiling and a floor. That would merely fix in time the spending pattern for the Forestry Commission, making it difficult for the assembly to embark on new policies or change its priorities. If the forestry budget should be ring-fenced, why not those for health, the Welsh Development Agency or education?


The purpose of devolution is to allow the assembly to change its priorities from time to time, reflecting local circumstances and its political will.
I had an exchange about funding earlier with several hon. Members. If the Forestry Commission wanted to dispose of assets and recycle the money as part of its annual operations, it would be able to do so as at present. If, on the other hand, there was a major privatisation, it would be open to the Treasury to recover part of the money because it reflected previous Great Britain investment. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a precise definition of what would be a major privatisation and what would be considered annual operations. We shall have to make such judgments as we go along.

Mr. Evans: I am grateful for that response. The Secretary of State will understand why we are asking such questions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) said earlier—the response to his point reinforced it—after devolution we shall have limited powers to question the Secretary of State for Wales on matters relating to the Forestry Commission in Wales. I suspect that we shall usually be ruled out of order because our questions will be considered not the responsibility of the Secretary of State. It is right that we should ask questions now, because the opportunity to do so will be curtailed.
There is a fear that, after devolution, if the assembly gets part of any money raised from sales, it may spend it elsewhere, particularly when budgets are tight. The assembly will not have direct tax-raising powers, but here we have the possibility of an indirect tax. The assembly may be keen to award itself other indirect tax-raising powers.

Mr. Ron Davies: The hon. Gentleman is misconstruing what I said. I made it clear that, if the forestry estate was rationalised or certain sales were made to fund other forestry projects in Wales, the matter would remain within the assembly's discretion. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that there will be privatisation, with the proceeds used to fund other services. I do not expect that. The hon. Gentleman should not raise the spectre of the Welsh assembly selling off the forestry estate in Wales wholesale to fund its other priorities. That is not what I said.

Mr. Evans: The Secretary of State likes to look at the devolution proposals through his rose-tinted spectacles, believing that everything will be fine and there will be sunshine. Expectations about what the assembly will do must already be high in Wales. It is right to consider worst case scenarios in Committee, to ensure that devices are in place to prevent them from coming about. That is all we are asking of the Secretary of State. We want him to clarify his interpretation of the Bill to ensure that it is carried out when devolution takes place.
The Forestry Commission is doing a good job. I have no problems with the way in which it is performing its functions in Wales, Scotland and England. It is fulfilling its targets with its limited budgets. The Secretary of State's passion for devolution is evident, although he is being rather coy—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) said—about whether he will

run for the assembly. Such a description does not normally sit easily with him. We need to be certain why, if the Forestry Commission is not broken, we trying to repair it.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I did not intend to speak, but I was intrigued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's mention of disaggregating the Forestry Commission's budget. I think that that is what he said; he certainly used the word "disaggregating".
I am totally ignorant about the Forestry Commission's finances, but I was surprised that it is necessary to disaggregate its budget. I should have thought that the Welsh Office would already know how much the Forestry Commission spends in respect of Wales—perhaps I am wrong. If the Welsh Office does not know, the Secretary of State will have to conduct the disaggregation exercise every year in order to arrive at a hypothetical disaggregated figure, which will be added to the rest of the block grant and handed to the assembly. If I am right—I could be completely wrong—the assembly would not, in this rather convoluted procedure, hand back the hypothetical disaggregated sum to the Forestry Commission. I do not know. The assembly might or might not hand back the equivalent of the disaggregated hypothetical sum. Is that the position?

Mr. Ron Davies: indicated assent.

Mr. Denzil Davies: My right hon. Friend is indicating that I may quite correctly have reached such a convoluted end. I find it strange that, at the moment, the Welsh Office does not know how much the Forestry Commission spends or what its budget is for Wales. Who—I ask, perhaps rhetorically—decides the Forestry Commission's budget? Presumably, it is decided by the Treasury at the moment. Is it decided in negotiation between the Treasury and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? My right hon. Friend said that he was responsible for the Forestry Commission in Wales.

Mr. Ron Davies: The essence of my right hon. Friend's case is absolutely correct. Forestry Commission operations in Wales are not funded at the moment out of the block grant. They are subject to a separate vote, which is negotiated with the Treasury by the respective forestry Ministers. His argument is correct that, post devolution, the forestry budget will be disaggregated. The block will increase, and that will form the basis of any future decisions that the assembly might want to take in funding forestry.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Perhaps one is playing with words. The budget must already be disaggregated if the Secretary of State for Wales is one of the three Ministers who negotiate with the Treasury on the total Forestry Commission budget. The Welsh Office must know what part of that relates to Wales, otherwise there would be nothing to negotiate. There is no need to disaggregate the budget because it is already disaggregated.

Mr. Ron Davies: Certain elements of the Forestry Commission's operation may or may not relate directly to Wales. That matter will have to be discussed. Indeed, it is the basis of current discussions. I cannot give my right


hon. Friend a precise figure, because we have not yet arrived at the appropriate adjustments that need to be made.
I shall try to help the Committee by making it clear that, during the current financial year, the Forestry Commission expects to spend £27 million in Wales and generate income of £29 million. In addition, there is the appropriate Welsh share of Great Britain expenditure and income, which has to be calculated. The Welsh share of net GB expenditure is nearly £30 million.

Mr. Denzil Davies: In effect, the budget is £27 million-plus. That is the figure about which—possibly—there is some doubt, although the Welsh figure is fairly clear. Will the "plus" figure also go to the Welsh assembly, which will decide whether to hand it back to the Forestry Commission? In effect, the Welsh assembly could pocket the GB figure. Is that what my right hon. Friend is saying?

Mr. Ron Davies: That is the effect of it, yes. My right hon. Friend says that the Welsh assembly could pocket the money, but it could not do so and simply walk away. As he knows, the money will be in addition to the block, and the assembly will then have to decide its spending priorities. It will be for the assembly to decide whether forestry is a higher or lower priority and whether the programmes will vary from year to year.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I do not want to pursue the point, but I find it rather bizarre that the £3 million, being a "GB" or British figure, will be handed over to the Welsh assembly. No doubt the assembly will do its job properly and not abuse its position, but this point highlights some of the difficulties in dealing with a Great Britain body that is based in Scotland and which will be answerable, in part to the Scottish Parliament, in part to a Minister in England and in part to the assembly in Wales. One can only hope that matters will work out all right.

Mr. Oliver Letwin: After that fascinating exchange about the financial side, I wish to raise what I suspect the Secretary of State will describe as a legalistic point, but one that is of considerable interest to Opposition Members, as it is part of a general pattern. Incidentally, I am still waiting for the Secretary of State to write to me about the errors that he made during our previous Committee sitting.
Will the Secretary of State, either now or when he winds up the debate, tell us whether the order-making power given in paragraph 1(1) of the new schedule is one that could, at least in theory, be transferred to the Welsh assembly through a transfer of functions order or a subsequent version thereof? If so, is it true that if that were to happen—even if it is not the current Government's policy—the Welsh assembly would itself have the ability to make orders in respect of the Forestry Commission? If so, how would that relate to the powers of the Scottish Parliament in respect of the Forestry Commission and to the activities of the UK Parliament?

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I welcome the new clause, the new schedule and the Government amendments, because it seems to me that one could not fail to devolve forestry

to the Welsh assembly. It would have been a great mistake had forestry and the funding responsibility for it not been devolved.

Mr. Evans: indicated dissent.

Mr. Morgan: I see the hon. Gentleman shaking his head—I take it that he does not believe that forestry should be devolved in the way proposed in the new clause. Because of forestry's intimate relationship with agriculture and rural life generally and because of its impact on the sustainability of rural life, responsibility for dealing with agriculture, forestry, tourism and other aspects of rural life should be devolved to the assembly, so that those matters can be dealt with according to the way in which the assembly sets democratic priorities.
My first point relates to the one raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). It would be useful to know when the disaggregation exercise will be completed. I do not know whether it will be done before the Bill goes to another place, or whether it will be carried out in connection with proceedings in another place, but, like my right hon. Friend, I should like to see the figures. The Committee should know what the present funding position is in respect of the Forestry Commission's various responsibilities, both those that are clearly a Wales responsibility and those that are the Wales share of the wider United Kingdom or Great Britain responsibility.
That is because of the switch taking place in the Forestry Commission's work and within forestry generally—from the giant monocultural plantations that formed the basis of the commission's work for 60 or 70 years, to the microforestry work that it increasingly emphasises nowadays. That change of emphasis is designed to achieve greater sustainability and to assist farmers to diversify from, for example, sheep farming in the uplands to being able to harvest a proportion of each year's growth in hardwood forests.
The switch from big monocultural plantations to the harvesting of natural growth in small coppices—a switch, therefore, from softwoods to hardwoods—is important, and requires a totally different approach not only to funding, but from Forestry Commission officers, in terms of the intimacy and local control that they need in working with farmers, landowners, local conservation groups and community forestry groups, for example.
We should also consider the job consequences of that switch and the number of jobs that can be created by harvesting only the natural growth of local hardwoods. If those woods are fed—through local sawmills or even, as I have seen in hardwood forests in south Wales, mobile sawmills—into furniture and similar industries, a massive number of jobs could be created in rural areas, to replace some of the jobs that are threatened in upland farming and other rural occupations.
Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say what the implications of the switch from soft to hardwoods—and from the big to the small scale—will be for the funding questions to which he referred and the disaggregation exercise? We all hope that that exercise will be finalised as soon as possible, so that, as has been said so many times in this interesting micro-debate, we have the information that we need.

Mr. Ron Davies: I am grateful for the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan)


because, as the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said, what happens to forestry is an important part of devolution. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) properly drew to the Committee's attention the difficulties that could arise. The Forestry Commission is a unique body that is, by and large, answerable for policy to the House of Commons through the Secretary of State for Scotland, as it is based in Scotland. By establishing a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh assembly, we shall create an asymmetrical structure, so we need to ensure that there are appropriate arrangements in Wales, just as our colleagues in Scotland will have to make appropriate arrangements there.
I believe that the new clause, the new schedule and the amendments will enable us to have the best of all worlds. We shall retain the overall advantage of the Forestry Commission's status as a Great Britain body, but there will be an opportunity for greater flexibility to reflect the priorities in Scotland and Wales.
In response to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West, it is likely that the new financial arrangements will apply from 1 April 2000, so we have some way to go before they are finalised.

Mr. Dalyell: I think that there is a real difficulty. Some of us have had discussions of a fairly confidential nature—no one wants to be embarrassed, and I am honestly not out to make trouble—and we know that there are real difficulties from the Edinburgh perspective about how the arrangements will work. Will the Forestry Commission put a candid paper into the Library to make public, before Report, its view on these difficult technical questions about investment and other aspects of its work?

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend will have to take up that question, if he feels it appropriate, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is the lead Minister on these matters. We need not make too much of this, as the functions of the Forestry Commission will not change, and the powers that I currently have to influence those functions will be transferred to the assembly. After devolution, the Scottish Parliament may want to exercise its powers of primary legislation to bring about more fundamental changes, but we cannot properly address that in our consideration of the Wales Bill. My hon. Friend should pursue his concerns elsewhere, not in this forum—although he should not for a moment take that to mean that I am encouraging him to pursue my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on the matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West rightly referred to the changing emphasis of the Forestry Commission, with its shift from a monoculture of softwoods to more varied hardwood production and the introduction of more small-scale enterprises. I strongly endorse those policies. It would be for the assembly to discuss with the commission the policies that should be pursued. The assembly could influence those policies by direct discussion with the commission and, in extremis, by exercising jointly the powers of direction that I currently hold. By its ability to fund the commission, it could ensure that its priorities were properly adopted.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Davies: I shall happily give way to the hon. Gentleman, if he will first let me deal with the points that have already been made. I was trying to wind up the debate, not the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Shepherd: The Secretary of State is not winding me up.

Mr. Davies: I am glad to hear that.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley spoke about the functions of the Forestry Commission. The new clause and our other changes will not affect those functions. As I have explained, an order under schedule 1(1) will provide for the commission's functions to be exercised separately, and differently, in Wales, but the functions themselves will remain. The policies that the commission follows in Wales will have to be discussed with the assembly. The funding that the assembly provides will reflect its priorities.

Mr. Shepherd: Am I correct in understanding that the assembly can, if it deems it appropriate, reduce the block grant from £27 million or £30 million to £20 million, for instance, so that the Forestry Commission's objectives, which were the basis of the original grant, could be frustrated by a cut decided on by the assembly?

Mr. Davies: I would have given the hon. Gentleman a far more robust response if he had asked whether the assembly could choose to reorder its priorities and increase the amount available to the Forestry Commission. He would have been entirely correct in that suggestion. That is the essence of devolution. In pursuance of policies to support and rebuild the countryside—we are dealing as best we can with a terrible crisis created by the legacy of 18 years of neglect—it may well be that the assembly will want to devote more money to forestry. If that is what the hon. Gentleman is asking, the answer is yes. The assembly will be able to vary the amount going to forestry.

Mr. Evans: The Secretary of State said that the Government wanted to do as much for the countryside as they possibly could. Was he on the march yesterday?

Mr. Davies: My Sunday arrangements are a matter for me. I do not propose to tell the Committee, because it may be that I was doing far more interesting things than coming to London to demonstrate on behalf of the countryside. The hon. Gentleman will know that I am a country man: I was born and have lived all my life in the countryside. I venture to suggest that, if the Government of the day had listened to the warnings that I and others gave them as far back as 1989 about bovine spongiform encephalopathy, for example, they would not have got into such a dreadful mess and wasted £3.5 billion of public money.
I have a good understanding of the countryside dimension. I believe that it is important that we follow a holistic approach, and I have no doubt whatever that the


Welsh assembly will pull together the strands that are necessary to ensure that we have a vigorous policy to address the problems of the countryside.
The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) raised a specific point. I was unaware of the fact that he had raised matters earlier to which I have not yet responded, but I assure him that I shall make inquiries and, if my officials have been negligent, I shall certainly not be negligent myself. The hon. Gentleman will understand that. If my officials have been negligent in giving him a precise answer, I shall remonstrate with them whole-heartedly. I have no doubt that as I speak scribes are looking back at each and every intervention by the hon. Gentleman in the debate and ensuring that he receives a reply. Of course, he is correct that if I fail to provide him with satisfaction, that is my responsibility, not my civil servants'. However, they will know what fate will befall them if they put me in that unfortunate predicament.
The order-making power in new schedule 1 could not be transferred to the assembly because, under clause 23(3), only functions in part VI of the Bill can be transferred. As the power would, in all likelihood, be used only once to set up the arrangements that I have described for forestry in Wales, there would be no need for such a transfer.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 38

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

'.—(1) The Assembly shall make a scheme setting out its proposals for securing that its functions are exercised with due regard to the principle that sustainable development should be promoted.
(2) The Assembly shall keep the scheme under review and in the year following each ordinary election shall consider whether it should be remade or revised.
(3) The Assembly may not delegate the function of making, or remaking or revising, the scheme to—

(a) a committee of the Assembly, or
(b) a member of the Assembly's staff.

(4) The Assembly shall publish the scheme when first made and whenever subsequently remade and, if the scheme is revised without being remade, shall publish either the revisions or the scheme as revised (as it considers appropriate).
(5) The Assembly shall consult such persons or bodies as it considers appropriate before making, remaking or revising the scheme.
(6) After each financial year of the Assembly, the Assembly shall publish a report of how its proposals as set out in the scheme were implemented in that financial year.'.—[Mr. Ron Davies.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 29

ABOLITION OF RESIDUARY BODY FOR WALES

`.—(1) Paragraph 18 of Schedule 13 to the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 (provisions for winding up of Residuary Body for Wales) is amended as follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph (2) (meaning of "the transitional period" within which the Residuary Body must try to complete its work and at the end of which it is to be wound up), for "period of five years

beginning with the establishment of the Residuary Body" substitute "period beginning with the establishment of the Residuary Body and ending with 31st March 1999".
(3) Omit—

(a) in sub—paragraph (3), "Subject to sub—paragraph (4),", and
(b) sub—paragraph (4),

(under which the Secretary of State may specify a period longer than the transitional period as the period at the end of which the Residuary Body is to be wound up).
(4) For sub—paragraphs (5) to (7) (duty of Residuary Body to submit scheme for its winding up and to make arrangements for transfers etc. and power of Secretary of State to make orders) substitute—
"(5) The Residuary Body shall, before the end of the period of three months beginning with the day on which the Government of Wales Act 1998 is passed, submit to the Secretary of State a scheme for the winding up of the Residuary Body.
(6) The scheme shall include in relation to the Residuary Body's remaining functions, property, rights and liabilities—

(a) a statement of arrangements made by the Residuary Body for their transfer by the Residuary Body to another body or bodies,
(b) proposals for their transfer by the Secretary of State to another body or bodies, or
(c) such a statement in relation to some of them and such proposals in relation to the rest.

(7) The Secretary of State may by order make provision for giving effect to the scheme (with or without modifications) and for the transfer of functions, property, rights and liabilities of the Residuary Body to another body or bodies (whether or not as proposed in the scheme).".'.—[Mr. Ron Davies.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ron Davies: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 515.

Mr. Davies: The White Paper made clear the intention to wind up the Residuary Body for Wales before 2000. The view was taken that the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 provided the necessary legal framework to effect the wind-up before the assembly was established. However, further consideration has concluded that the powers in the 1994 Act do not allow the certainty that will be necessary to wind up the residuary body in the time scale necessary. The issue is not a point of controversy between the Government and the Opposition, and new clause 29 and Government amendment No. 515 are intended to provide the necessary certainty.
From the outset, I wish to make it clear that the residuary body and the local authorities in Wales agree that an early wind-up is desirable. Following the local government reorganisation of 1996, the residuary body inherited 21 properties, of which only six remain to be disposed of. The residuary body hopes to sell them in the coming months, although there is no guarantee that that will happen. None the less, new clause 29 and Government amendment No. 515 are designed to ensure that the residuary body can be wound up by 1 April 1999, irrespective of whether it still has any unresolved property disposals.
Furthermore, the residuary body will be required to submit a wind-up scheme that includes proposals for the subsequent transfer of property within three months of the Bill being enacted. Local authorities will be consulted on the residuary body's draft scheme before any wind-up order is made. The new clause does not stipulate how, at the wind-up, property vested in the residuary body should be disposed of, and we await its proposals in the wind-up plan on whether the properties, if unsold, should be transferred to an appropriate local authority by agreement or, in the absence of such agreement, by order.

Mr. Evans: As the Secretary of State says, the new clause is not controversial. He referred to the six properties that will remain in the hands of the residuary body. Is there any controversy about any of those six properties? Does he expect any problems with their sale or transfer to local authorities?
The Secretary of State said that he had talked with the local authorities and found that they were keen for the residuary body to be wound up early. In his discussions, did he encounter any reservations about the possibility of the residuary body being wound up? Has he had talks about the residuary body—gosh, that is difficult to say; the sooner it is wound up, the better—and, if so, what representations have been made to him about the early winding up?

Mr. Davies: I have had no talks with the residuary body, but my officials have and, to answer the hon. Gentleman's question directly, I am given to understand that both local government and the residuary body are anxious for the residuary body to be wound up.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether any problem attached to the remaining properties. I hesitate, when talking about property in Wales, to give him a categorical statement that there is no unresolved problem, but he asked specifically about the six properties that remain. They are the staff club at Westgate street in Cardiff; Greyfriars house and offices, Cardiff—which I understand are the subject of some offers at the moment; Nos. 3 to 5 Goring road, Llanelli; unit 7, Castle park, Flint; phase IV of county hall, Mold; and No. 3 High street, Caernarfon.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 28

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

'. A document purporting to be—

(a) duly executed under the seal of the Assembly, or
(b) signed on behalf of the Assembly,

shall be received in evidence and shall, unless the contrary is proved, be taken to be so executed or signed.'—[Mr. Ron Davies.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ron Davies: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
As a body corporate, under common law the assembly will automatically be entitled to a seal. The new clause relates to the significance that courts attach to documents

submitted in evidence and bearing the assembly's seal. Such documents are to be regarded as properly made unless the contrary is proved. There have been many similar clauses in recent legislation, including equivalent clauses in the Welsh Language Act 1993 and the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 7

PRIVATE AND LOCAL LEGISLATION

'( ) The Assembly may promote or oppose private or local legislation relating to Wales.'.—[Mr. Wigley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Wigley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause relates to the issue of private legislation and is, to some extent, a probing new clause, if that term may be used. Clarification is needed on several questions regarding private Bills—I emphasise that we are talking about private Bills, not private Members' Bills.
I imagine that the answer to the first question will be yes. Does the assembly, as a geographically defined body within the United Kingdom, have the right to promote private Bills, as would a local authority or any other body, and the right to oppose private Bills?
The second question is: can Wales, as a unit, be considered as an area for which it is appropriate to initiate private Bills—can the assembly initiate private Bills that apply to the whole of Wales but which would need to pass through the private Bill mechanisms in the House?
The third aspect of the new clause concerns the extent to which the assembly may deal with private Bills. In the fairly recent past, fairly controversial private Bills from Wales have taken hours and hours on the Floor of the House. The Cardiff Bay Barrage Act 1993 is a perfect example of legislation that should be dealt with in the assembly instead of swallowing time on the Floor of the House of Commons.
There are less controversial examples—such as the Porthmadog harbour revision order that affects part of my constituency. From time to time, all hon. Members become involved with such legislation. The hon. Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) is in the Chamber. A few years ago, a Bangor Market Bill passed through the House by way of the private Bill procedure—and no doubt another resembling it will do so again in future.
4.45 pm
Such matters need not be dealt with in the House of Commons; it should be possible to deal with them in the assembly. However, the Houses of Parliament have a very tight procedure for dealing with private Bills and I am not convinced that the Government intend to make it easier for all that procedure to take place in the assembly.
There is some parallel with the order-making facility that is within the assembly's purview. The fact that the assembly may pass secondary legislation gives it a fair amount of power. If the Government are worried about the amount of power that may be transferred and about the need for checks and balances on the use of that


power, I argue that it is no more radical to transfer to the assembly the power to deal with private Bills than to give it order-making powers because, as we heard earlier in the Committee, the power to pass secondary legislation is substantial.
Those are the three aspects of the new clause. We do not intend its wording to be wide enough to cover all three adequately. Our intention is to discover what will be the role of the assembly when dealing with private legislation and to express the hope that it will be possible to develop the assembly into—if it is not so from the start—a body that can deal entirely with these matters. The time of the House of Commons should not be used on matters that are essentially local and should be dealt with by people from Wales, in Wales.

Mr. Letwin: I shall briefly ask the Secretary of State a question that is in line with the probing new clause. In the context of the developing argument about the legal status of the National Assembly for Wales, it would be interesting to know whether the Secretary of State believes that, in the absence of such a new clause—although the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) may disagree with me, I think it likely that the Government will not accept it—the vires exist for the assembly to promote private legislation.
When I inquired, the Clerk in the Private Bill Office told me that any individual in the United Kingdom can promote a private Bill without having any special rights, duties or powers. Is the National Assembly for Wales, in that sense, a legal person? Does it have, therefore, the right to promote a private Bill and, if so, what would be the scope of that right and which moneys would it deploy in its promotion?
Would the assembly have the right, in promoting such a Bill, to use moneys that the Secretary of State had allocated to it for its general purposes? If so, would there be any constraint on that, or might the assembly spend 100 per cent. of its budget on the promotion of one private Bill?
Finally, to illustrate why I ask the extreme and apparently ludicrous question about the 100 per cent., if the nature of the private Bill in question were very special—if it were one which the right hon. Member for Caernarfon and his colleagues might want to be promoted, relating to the governance of Wales—would it be debarred by some means, or would it have to be debarred only by the ordinary processes of the House in considering private Bills?

Mr. Ron Davies: I thank the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) for opening the debate and I am pleased to tell him that the Government accept the broad principle of new clause 7. I hope that we will return at a later stage with an appropriate new clause because, as he suggested, the wording of his new clause is somewhat defective.
The Welsh Office has previously promoted at Westminster legislation that would have been local legislation if it had not been promoted by the Government; examples are the Conwy Tunnel (Supplementary Powers) Act 1983, the Cardiff Bay Barrage Act 1993 and possibly the Caldey Island Act 1990.
We do not want there to be any doubt about the power of the assembly to promote or oppose essentially local legislation, as the Secretary of State for Wales has done in the past. I cannot give the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) a direct answer to his question at this moment, but it is because we want to avoid doubt that the Government are minded to accept the thrust of the new clause 7.
The right hon. Member for Caernarfon asked whether Wales would be regarded as an acceptable geographical entity for the purposes of promoting private legislation. The answer is yes, I understand that that would be accepted.
Acceptance of the thrust of the right hon. Gentleman's case would not confer on the assembly the power to make primary legislation. The assembly could promote only a private Bill in Parliament.
The Government are considering further the precise terms of their new clause. For instance, it may be desirable to require a decision to promote or oppose local legislation to be supported by more than a simple majority of the assembly. We are looking into such matters and if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to make representations during this brief debate or subsequently, I shall listen carefully to them.
We must also consider the interaction with the Transport and Works Act 1992. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the many hours of happy debate that the House had on the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill. Those proceedings have largely been overtaken by the Transport and Works Act 1992. We must ensure that the assembly could not promote an order for development under that Act and approve it itself. We will ensure that the new clause is technically correct in that respect.
In view of the undertakings that I have given, I hope that at the appropriate time the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw the motion.

Mr. Wigley: I am grateful to the Secretary of State and I am glad to have had positive responses from him on two of the matters that I raised. At the end of his remarks, he touched upon, but did not clarify, the third.
The right hon. Gentleman acknowledged that the assembly is a developing body. To what extent is it possible—and to what extent is the possibility constrained—for the assembly to develop into a body that not only promotes Bills, but can dispose of them? For example, local authorities in Wales could propose their private Bills to the assembly if the Government deemed that to be appropriate. The order-making facility in the Bill—in clauses 22 and 141, I think—may indeed allow that to happen.
I realise that there must be checks and balances in the process of private legislation, that there may be private interests that need to be balanced and that there is a role for the House of Lords as well as the House of Commons. None the less, it may well be that the assembly could handle some aspects of private legislation from within Wales—that from local authorities, for example—without their needing to come through to Westminster. What is the Government's thinking on that?

Mr. Davies: We shall have to consider the matter carefully before we table the new clause that the right


hon. Gentleman seeks. The problem is that private legislation is effectively primary legislation. I made it clear that we cannot through this mechanism confer on the assembly the power to make primary legislation. I said earlier that such a provision would have to be made by the promotion of a private Bill in this Parliament.
I understand that it would be largely a matter for the House authorities to decide whether a private Bill was an appropriate private Bill or whether it exceeded the provisions of this place for the handling of private legislation. I regret that I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a precise answer on that point.
We must examine closely the operation of the Transport and Works Act 1992. The assembly cannot use order-making powers under that Act to create de facto primary legislation. That is not the purpose of the Act and we will have to ensure that our new clause takes that into account.
The hon. Member for West Dorset asked a fair question and I tried earlier to answer it. He asked whether the absence of new clause 7 would mean that the assembly would not have the power to promote private legislation. The assembly is a creature of statute and is given certain powers. That particular power is not conferred by the Bill, although there may be arguments about whether, de facto, the assembly could decide to do that. The Government have accepted the argument advanced by the right hon. Member for Caernarfon to avoid doubt.
Once we have tabled our own new clause, there will be no doubt and the assembly will have the power to promote primary legislation. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about whether that would be in order in the present circumstances is that there is an element of doubt. Instead of prolonged debates about whether that can or cannot happen, the Government have decided to clarify the position by tabling their own new clause.

Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. His surprising response to the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) invalidates part of my question, as the problem will not arise.
I repeat the second part of my question. Under the Government's version of the right hon. Gentleman's new clause, will there be any limits on the expenditure that the assembly will be able to incur in promoting private legislation?

Mr. Davies: I am trying to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman, but we do not have the new clause written yet, so I cannot tell him whether there will be such limits. Perhaps I can give him a steer. I do not think that it would be appropriate for us to lay down financial limits that should apply to the assembly in the exercise of its powers. The purpose of the Bill is to create the assembly and give it substantial powers to decide its own priorities. A pretty good case would have to be put to me for circumscribing the powers with a financial limit.

Mr. Wigley: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his positive response to at least part of the thrust

of my new clause. I hope that the Government's new clause will be ready for our consideration, otherwise we shall have to look to the House of Lords to deal with it and we shall have a further opportunity to consider the matter when the Bill returns to this House.
I put it to the Secretary of State that given that there is a facility in the Bill to amend primary legislation by order in certain restricted areas—the Henry VIII powers, as they are fondly known, and we are all growing more knowledgeable about what Henry VIII could and could not do—

Mr. Ancram: On legislation.

Mr. Wigley: Of course. I would not for a moment suggest that heads should be rolling around the Chamber. Given that those powers exist, if that principle is applied to private Bills, as it may be applied to certain limited areas of public Bills, it might be a way of ensuring that the assembly can deal with certain matters without having to take up the time of Parliament on them. A range of issues arise and it is ridiculous that they become centralised to Westminster and take up the time of the House of Commons.
In drawing up the new clause, the Government may bear that in mind and give the assembly the flexibility to get on with scrutinising and deciding on some local matters, without every single one having to come through Westminster. That would accord with the general tenor of the Secretary of State's approach to other aspects of the Bill. I hope that the Government will move in that direction at the appropriate time.

Mr. Ron Davies: I shall reflect on the points that the right hon. Gentleman has made. The Henry VIII powers to which he refers apply only to specified legislation that is stipulated in the Bill. I have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman's comments and, on the basis of our dialogue, I hope that he will withdraw his new clause and give the Government the opportunity to reflect on his case.

Mr. Wigley: I intend to do precisely that. We look forward to seeing the wording of the amendment or new clause that the Government will propose at the appropriate time. No doubt we shall return to our discussion of the detailed questions then.
Although the Henry VIII powers apply to specific legislation, the powers of clause 141 are fairly broad with regard to existing legislation to the extent that they impact on certain matters dealt with in the Bill. Flexibility along those lines would be helpful not only to the assembly but to successive Governments in this place. The ultimate control of granting an order to facilitate matters may rest with Governments in Westminster. There is no question of the assembly's marching away with those powers, but it should have the flexibility to ensure that matters are dealt with reasonably in Wales rather than centralised in Westminster. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

The First Deputy Chairman: We now come to new clause 11. Who will move it?

New clause 11

POWER TO CONDUCT REFERENDA

'.—The Assembly may conduct a referendum in Wales on any matter affecting Wales:.[Mr. Dafis.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

5 pm

Mr. Dafis: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Thank you for your patience, Mr. Martin. This new clause concerns the power of the assembly to hold referendums. I want to probe whether the assembly will have that power—I certainly believe that it should and I believe that the absence of primary legislative powers strengthens our case.
The power exists already at varying levels of government. Parliament has the power to hold a referendum after it has passed an Act specifically for that purpose. The Scottish Parliament will also be able to do that as it will have primary legislative powers. At the bottom level of government, schedule 12, part IV of the Local Government Act 1972 confers the power to hold community polls on any question to be decided at a community meeting if the chair of the meeting consents and if the poll is demanded by at least 10 local government electors present at the meeting, or by at least a third of local government electors present at the meeting. That power exists at the basis of government at the community level.
The power of unitary or county councils to hold referendums is more ambiguous. However, section 141 of the 1972 Act allows those bodies to conduct an investigation and collect information concerning the county or any part of it. I am told that that could involve holding a countywide poll in certain circumstances. A parallel power in Scotland enabled Strathclyde regional council to conduct a referendum in March 1994 on the Government's proposals for the water industry in Scotland. That referendum was influential in the debate about whether the Scottish water industry should be privatised.
I believe that the national assembly should be given this power unambiguously—although it might not use it and, if it did, it would be used sparingly. It could be particularly useful in the kind of circumstances that arose in Scotland—if a future Government tried to impose upon Wales a set of policies that were unacceptable to Wales, which is not unheard of in Welsh history. For example, a future Government might wish to impose selection in the school system. We are currently debating education legislation that does that to a limited degree: it allows schools to apply to select pupils for certain subjects on the basis of aptitude. A future Government might introduce far more sweeping selection proposals.
If the national assembly could not prevent the introduction of such policies through secondary legislation—it might not be able to do that because of the way in which the legislation is designed—it might express its objections. Although the Government should take the assembly's views into account, they might decide to override them. The Secretary of State of the day could claim to have public opinion on his or her side—it would not be the first time that politicians have claimed to speak

for the people; they have an unpleasant tendency to do that. Even my colleagues are sometimes guilty of claiming to speak for the community at large.
If a Secretary of State did that, a referendum would settle the argument by revealing the people's views. It would be a powerful tool for the assembly in establishing that it had a democratic mandate beyond that which it was given initially through the electoral process. I believe that the assembly should have that kind of power.

Mr. Evans: I can understand why the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) was rather reluctant to move new clause 11—particularly in light of what happened the last time there was a referendum in Wales. I am surprised and shocked that the hon. Gentleman is even considering using the referendum process as a device for testing public opinion. The last experience was not a tremendous or a ringing success, with only 50.1 per cent. of electors voting in that referendum.
The hon. Gentleman has said that new clause 11 is probing and is designed to determine whether the assembly will be able to instruct that a referendum be held in Wales. In light of all the evidence that the hon. Gentleman produced in the local sphere, I suspect that the assembly will have that power. It will be interesting to see whether the Welsh assembly will be able to instruct that a referendum be held in Wales on a constitutional question. Will the Secretary of State respond to that issue? Does he believe that the assembly will have the power to hold a referendum in any event?
The hon. Gentleman said that he thought that the power would be used sparingly—I suspect that that is because referendums are very expensive. We must also consider voter fatigue and the fact that electors do not like being asked to vote constantly. Under devolution, we are establishing an assembly with 60 politicians who will represent Welsh constituencies and regions. They will consider carefully events in Wales and will speak on behalf of Wales in that body. A referendum would devolve power away from the assembly to individuals. I suspect that the proposal is a product of new Plaid Cymru or Plaid Cymru Newydd—I know that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are having problems deciding what to call their party.
If the assembly has the power to instruct that referendums be held, could Parliament instruct that those referendums be conducted following certain guidelines? For instance, Newport council has been criticised for spending £8,000 of taxpayers' money during the Welsh devolution referendum campaign on a leaflet publicising the yes vote. The Government have claimed that no taxpayers' money will be used to promote a particular side in a referendum campaign. However, I have reservations about copies of the White Paper that were sent to every letterbox in Wales, and I suspect that taxpayers' money was used to promote that case. Local authorities should not have the power to issue propaganda that is paid for with taxpayers' money from a very limited budget and delivered to every house in the area. It should be established at the outset that that should not occur.
Perhaps referendums will be used to sort out problems between the Secretary of State for Wales and the First Secretary of the assembly, both of whom might say that they speak on behalf of Wales. If they are not one and the


same person—they might be because of Cabinet responsibility—a referendum might be used as a device, whereby the First Secretary will say, "I am speaking for Wales, and I shall hold a referendum to prove that that is the case," against the policy of the Government of the day.
Referendums might also be used to trample the wishes of minorities. We saw a fine example yesterday with the march through London, in which the Secretary of State for Wales did not take part; he said that he had better things to do on a Sunday than to march with rural people. Will minorities be protected to ensure that they are not trampled as a result of the wishes of the majority on country pursuits, including angling? Backed by a referendum, the majority might say that it should not take place in Wales.
Referendums on Sunday closing used to be held regularly in parts of Wales. I think that only one part of Wales is dry on a Sunday, but I might be wrong. One area held out rigidly. Perhaps referendums will be held in parts of Wales. If the previous referendum in Wales proved anything, it was that 11 areas of Wales were in favour of devolution and 11 areas were against.
The other important aspect is whether the assembly will have direct tax-raising powers. We know from earlier debates in Committee that the Liberal Democrats are not in favour of such a referendum. In fact, they tabled an amendment and said that they were not interested in another referendum in Wales. They thought that the assembly would be sensible enough to know when it was appropriate to use its tax-raising powers, without consulting the Welsh people. That is completely wrong.
Scotland held a referendum on a Parliament and on whether it should have tax-varying powers. The electorate chose to have a Parliament and, to a lesser extent, but with a majority, for it to have such powers. In Wales, the referendum was on the establishment of an assembly without any tax-raising powers whatever. It would be completely wrong not to have a referendum to establish whether it should. I give a commitment to the Secretary of State and to the people of Wales that under no circumstances would tax-raising powers ever be introduced for an assembly in Wales by a future Conservative Government without the Welsh people stating that that is exactly what they wish.

Mr. Richard Livsey: I apologise for my absence at the start of the debate. My train should have arrived at 2.20 pm, but because of the railways policy of the previous Government—now the official Opposition—it arrived at 4.45 pm, so I deserve an official apology from them. This is an extraordinary state of affairs.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) did not make in his recycled speech what I would describe as substantial points.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: I have to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I seem to remember—he belongs to the same profession as me—being reminded during the early days of my career, "You shall take the train you need before the train you need to get to the court on time."

Mr. Livsey: I shall not be diverted. The fact that the train was one and a half hours late speaks for itself.
The new clause is an important aspect of the possibility of giving the assembly powers that could be useful. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley referred to the Sunday closing referendums that we used to have in Wales. We recognise that the clause on referendums applies only to secondary legislation; the assembly does not have the ability to make primary legislation. The assembly might seek a view on primary legislation to represent to Parliament. Parliament might wish to grant tax-varying powers to the assembly if that were the wish of the people of Wales. Westminster might enact primary legislation for that to occur. Is such a referendum possible?
What provision is there to implement legislation that follows a referendum? If the Welsh voted overwhelmingly in favour of tax-varying powers, would Westminster have any power to implement such legislation?
5.15 pm
There are other areas where referendums would be of great use in Wales. Perhaps county councils—particularly in the present climate with regard to the countryside—could be enabled to expand their smallholding schemes. It might involve enabling county councils to get hold of more capital to carry out such a policy. Would such a referendum be possible within a county in Wales, supported by the assembly? There are many issues where referendums could be useful. I, too, was on the countryside march yesterday, and proud of it.

Mr. Letwin: I shall, if I may, intrude a little further on the Secretary of State's good will and press slightly further the point raised by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis), who asked whether the Welsh assembly would have the power to conduct referendums in the absence of the new clause.
I draw the Secretary of State's attention to clause 39, in which we are told that the assembly may do anything that is calculated to facilitate or is
conducive or incidental to the exercise of any of its functions.
Does clause 39 give the assembly the power to hold referendums? If it does not, it would be extremely interesting to know whether that is because of the disconnection between a referendum and the functions of the assembly, or whether it is because the holding of a referendum could not be regarded as calculated to facilitate such functions. In other words, is the problem that a referendum might not be connected with the functions allocated in the Bill? Or could a referendum be construed as not facilitating those functions? If the answer is the second rather than the first, there could be forms of referendum that would be legitimate under the Bill as drafted, whereas other forms might not be. It would help the Committee to know, as we have not enlarged sufficiently in Committee on the general scope of the powers in clause 39.

Mr. Gareth Thomas: I speak in opposition to the new clause. It is extraordinarily vague and has the potential for great confusion, disruption and mischief-making. It is not circumscribed in any way. [Interruption.]

Mr. Ron Davies: I am grateful for the robust defence of the Government's position, but I should tell


my hon. Friend that our position is flexible on this matter. He should not dig a deep hole for me, which I might find it difficult to get out of.

Mr. Thomas: If my right hon. Friend had contained himself, I would have gone on to enlighten him, by explaining why I regard the new clause, as drafted, to be extraordinarily vague. It refers simply to an ability for the assembly to
conduct a referendum … on any matter affecting Wales.
That ability is not circumscribed and is not confined to secondary legislation within the areas of government devolved to the assembly. This is an extraordinary omission.
As the new clause stands, it raises several crucial questions. The clause makes no reference to what rules should apply in relation to how the referendums should be conducted or to who will pay for them. It fails to take account of the important issue that the raison d'être for an assembly is to give Wales an elected voice through that assembly and through its elected representatives. Any attempt to use such a device as is proposed too speedily would, in my view, undermine the principle behind the assembly. That is why I object to the new clause.

Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Thomas: I have finished speaking.

Mr. Ron Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) for making, as he normally does, a forthright and vigorous defence of the Government's position. It was a particularly well-considered speech.
I wish to express my disappointment. I had hoped that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) had learned something over the past couple of weeks. For the first one and a half hours of the debate the hon. Gentleman was the model of circumspection—he was considered and well researched and it was a pleasure to listen to him—but then he degenerated into his old diatribe, which we have heard time after time. At the end of it, I was not sure whether he was speaking in favour of the new clause or against it.
It is worth reminding the Committee that new clause 11 is very brief. It reads:
The Assembly may conduct a referendum in Wales on any matter affecting Wales.
The contribution of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley was astonishing. He talked about fox hunting, local councils, Parliament instructing the assembly and taxing powers. I am rather surprised that he did not suggest that we should have a referendum on the right to roam. If anyone wants the right to roam enshrined in legislation, it would seem to be the hon. Gentleman, having roamed all over the place. He made no reference to the new clause.
I wish to put one point to the hon. Gentleman forcefully. He reverted to type and talked about the referendum of 18 September, which the people of Wales won and which embarked us on this course of legislation. It was, of course, a consultative referendum. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue the matter, let me remind him that the House of Commons voted by a majority of

231 on Second Reading to endorse the proposed legislation. That is what has given the present process of legislation real authority. We had an advisory referendum and the Bill has the vigorous, whole-hearted and full endorsement of the House of Commons.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will put aside, as he managed to do for the first one and a half hours this evening, all his worst prejudices against the people of Wales. I hope that he will accept—I know that the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) would be the first to do so—and acknowledge how reasonable the Government are on these matters, and how flexible and emollient we are when the Opposition make any reasonable suggestion, whether it comes from the Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru or even the Conservatives. If there is a shred of substance or rationality in proposed amendments, I am prepared to consider them.
I hope that the right hon. Member for Devizes will persuade his hon. Friend to acknowledge that the Government are exercising discretion and operating in the most delicate way possible in embarking on this process of legislation.

Mr. Evans: That is, of course, entirely in character with the way in which the Secretary of State conducts himself in the House of Commons. I was trying to be as reasonable as I possibly could in speaking to the new clause. However, I believe that the assembly would have the power itself to conduct a referendum. That is why I asked several questions, especially on constitutional matters. I am merely stating—it is a clear fact, irrespective of how we wish to rewrite history—that the most recent referendum held in Wales was not a great success, with only 50 per cent. of the people turning out.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman may believe that the Bill empowers the assembly. He will forgive me if I choose to rely on advice other than that which comes from the Opposition Dispatch Box, from the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman's point was taken up by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), whose contribution I shall refer to before I take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis), who introduced the new clause. I refer the hon. Member for West Dorset to my reply to a previous debate, during which a similar question was asked. The assembly is a creature of statute. Unless power is spelt out in the founding, primary legislation, there must be a question whether that power can be properly exercised. That is my answer to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for West Dorset asked about the general power that exists in clause 39. It may well be that that clause could be used if the referendum being proposed was in pursuance of other powers that the assembly was exercising. There is some doubt whether clause 39 would provide the authority for a referendum to be held, if it were being held on a matter not in pursuance of other powers that the assembly was implementing. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that there is doubt whether at present the assembly has such power.
I return to the hon. Member for Ceredigion. I do not want to give a commitment at this stage to return with a Government amendment relating to the new clause. However, the hon. Gentleman has raised a serious issue and I would like to examine further the points raised by the new clause.
I have a number of concerns about the proposal that is at present before the Committee in the form of the clause. First, the clause does not make clear what electoral rules would apply for any referendum. The Government are determined to ensure that whenever a referendum is held, the rules are laid down clearly by the House of Commons and that they are followed scrupulously by the various electoral officers who are appointed to undertake the task. I want to ensure that any amendment that the Government were minded to bring forward would make clear what electoral rules would apply for any such referendums.
The referendums that have been held in the United Kingdom on several occasions over the past 25 years have been authorised by an Act of Parliament, as was the case last year, which led to the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Act 1997. If the assembly were to have a power to conduct referendums in Wales, it would need to be constructed in such a way that it did riot involve a power to make primary legislation. Paragraph 34 of schedule 12 to the Local Government Act 1972—the point raised by the hon. Member for Ceredigion about community polls in Wales—may be a precedent. That is one of the matters to which I want to give further consideration.
Finally, any explicit power for the assembly to conduct referendums would have to be limited in some way to its range of responsibilities and make it clear that the assembly would meet the cost of holding them.
I repeat that I cannot give a commitment—

Mr. Evans: The Secretary of State has just made the important point that the assembly would not be able to instruct that a referendum be held on an issue involving primary legislation. What would be the position if it were to have an advisory referendum as opposed to one involving primary legislation directly—that is, if it did not have that power anyway—and decided that it wished to have one on the independence of Wales, for instance? Would it be able to do that?

Mr. Davies: With respect, the hon. Gentleman has missed my point. I was saying that referendums that have been held previously have been the result of primary legislation that has passed through this Parliament. If the assembly were to have a power to conduct a referendum, it would need to be constructed in such a way that it was not seen to be itself exercising a power which was similar to primary legislation. It is the process by which the referendum is authorised that is of concern, and not so much the question that would form the matter for public debate. I hope that that deals with the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Ancram: Under the Bill as it stands, or under any amendment that the Secretary of State might table, would the Welsh assembly be able to instruct that a referendum be held on whether Wales should become independent or remain within the United Kingdom? Because of the reserved nature of constitutional matters in Scotland, there is genuine doubt about whether the Scottish Parliament would have such a power.

Mr. Davies: There is no doubt in my mind that the Bill as drafted does not give the assembly authority to hold

referendums, which is why I shall consider the point raised by the hon. Member for Ceredigion. I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a precise answer, because this is not a Government amendment and I am not proposing such a power.

Mr. Ancram: Will the Secretary of State write to me on the matter?

Mr. Davies: If I do not table an amendment, I shall certainly write to the right hon. Gentleman. However, if we decided not to table an amendment, it would not be necessary to clarify the position because there would be no opportunity to hold referendums.
The principle must be that any referendum would have to be properly authorised and on a matter for which the assembly was responsible. If we were to go down that path and the Government were to propose such a power, there should be a debate about the matters on which the assembly should have the authority to hold referendums.

Mr. Letwin: Earlier, the Secretary of State mentioned the promotion of private Bills. Would any amendment that he tabled give the assembly the right to hold a referendum on its proposed promotion of such a Bill?

Mr. Davies: I gave way to the hon. Gentleman to enable me to reply to a point that he made in that previous debate. I wrote to him on 26 January and 19 February, giving detailed answers to questions that he had asked. I hope that he will put the record straight and acknowledge that my civil servants and I have been diligent and forthright in answering the questions that he has quite properly asked.

Mr. Letwin: I referred not to those illuminating letters, for which I am duly grateful and to which we might return on Report, but to Wednesday's debates on the Welsh Development Agency. The Secretary of State said that if he was mistaken in what he was telling me, he would write to me. Subsequent researches have shown that he was mistaken, and I hope that he will write to me.

Mr. Davies: If I undertook to write to the hon. Gentleman if I was mistaken, I shall do so, but I find such circumstances difficult to conceive. Nevertheless, I shall allow for the possibility and assure the hon. Gentleman that if I have made a promise, I shall keep it.
The hon. Gentleman should not interpret my remarks as a commitment to table an amendment allowing for referendums to be held. I shall consider such a provision, but I specifically said that I am not giving any commitment. However, he made a fair point: if the assembly were to promote a private Bill, I should have thought that it would want to ensure that there was wide support for the measure. The assembly might decide that there should be a referendum on a private Bill, but that is a matter for the assembly. It is not for me to speculate on how the assembly would use its powers to hold a referendum or to promote private legislation, should it be given them. Such matters will have to be considered some way down the road.
I repeat that I am not giving a commitment to table a Government amendment. However, I want further to consider those serious questions, and hope that the motion will be withdrawn.

Mr. Dafis: The debate has been useful and I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his responses.
I must place on record my undying and profound admiration for the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who is exceptionally skilled in flogging a dead horse. I am not sure whether his skills are becoming more or less admirable, but he seems to have an unending capacity in this regard. He also has a remarkable ability for losing track of the substance discussion. My special skill is mixing metaphors, but we shall leave that matter to one side.
The hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) questioned the appropriateness of referendums for making decisions. That is not what the debate is about: the question is whether the National Assembly for Wales should have such powers. Local bodies and bodies with responsibility for national legislation have such powers, so it would be wrong for the assembly to be unable to resort to referendums, should it wish to do so.
I am glad that the Secretary of State will consider these matters further, and I urge him to do so. I had not envisaged the assembly holding referendums on major constitutional issues. The power should be used sparingly and only when necessary, to ensure that policies that it had advocated were acceptable in Wales and were strengthened by a democratic mandate.
We have some confidence that the Secretary of State will bring forward a proposal. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 12

ADVICE FROM UNITED KINGDOM GOVERNMENT STAFF

'.—(1) A member of the executive committee may request advice from staff of United Kingdom government departments and other public bodies in cases where the member considers that this would assist him in the carrying out of his duties under this Act.
(2) The Assembly and the Cabinet Office shall draw up a concordat governing arrangements for staff of United Kingdom government departments and other public bodies to respond to requests made under subsection (1).'.—[Mr. Wigley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Wigley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause deals with the important matter of the right of members of the Executive Committee of the assembly to obtain advice from staff of United Kingdom Government Departments, or other public bodies, on matters that are relevant to their functions. Existing, and particularly proposed, legislation on subjects whose executive and administrative dimensions have been devolved will have implications for Wales. A member of the Executive Committee who is in charge of, for example, education or health in Wales might need advice from UK governmental staff in London who are drawing up legislation that affects Wales.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I am interested in the right hon. Gentleman's reference to UK Government Departments.

He also mentioned education and health. As I understand it, no UK Government Departments will cover education and health in Wales.

Mr. Wigley: The right hon. Gentleman may want to move an amendment on Report to deal with that matter if the new clause is agreed to. As he well knows, legislation dealing with education in Wales will be passed at Westminster, not in our National Assembly for Wales. However, a member of the Executive Committee of the assembly will be responsible for the implementation of such legislation in Wales. Particular circumstances in Wales may bear on the framing, content and implementation of such legislation.
I accept that the new clause may be defective because it refers to Government Departments, but it is a probing amendment. We are trying to establish whether the right to advice exists. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to confirm that such a right exists, or that, if it does not, a provision along the lines of my new clause is needed. If it would better meet the requirements of the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), a new clause could be tabled, worded differently from mine but at least going in the same direction.
The Bill needs to be clear. Those charged with making decisions in the Cardiff Executive need to know where they stand. The door needs to be open. Subsection (2) of the new clause provides for the drawing up of "a concordat governing arrangements" for that approach to be possible. The concordat is necessary, for the simple reason that there may be an Executive in Cardiff of one political persuasion, and a Government in London of another political persuasion.

Mr. Denzil Davies: That is devolution. The right hon. Gentleman wants devolution and a unitary state at the same time.

Mr. Wigley: This particular Member of Parliament would he very happy for all the law-making powers to be in our own national assembly in Cardiff, where the problem would not arise. The problem arises because of the split function, and the need to ensure that those in charge of framing legislation have some interface with those who must act on the implications of the legislation. My party would be very happy for the assembly to have the full powers available to the Scottish Parliament to make its own laws on, for instance, education, without having to come to Westminster; but that is not what we are discussing. The new clause tries to deal with the difficulty that may arise because of the split function.
We need a concordat of some kind, although whether it is enshrined in legislation may be another issue. We need ground rules to ensure that those who, from May 1999 onwards, will be carrying out their new responsibilities in the assembly know exactly what they can and cannot do. We do not want their route to be blocked by certain political considerations at Westminster. We want certain rights to be embedded in primary legislation—rights on which they can fall back when necessary.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I will speak briefly. The right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) became more and more confused as his speech went on—

Mr. Wigley: Rubbish.

Mr. Davies: That is the kind of reaction that we receive from members of Plaid Cymru—is it still Plaid Cymru?—when we criticise them.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned a split function. There is no split function; there are two separate functions. The right hon. Gentleman is talking about the function of the assembly, and the function of United Kingdom Departments. The Treasury, the Foreign Office, the Home Office, the Department of Social Security, the Department for Education and Employment and the Ministry of Defence will be involved, but I can think of no other functions that will be carried out on a United Kingdom basis.
That goes to the heart of the problem. The right hon. Gentleman says that it is just a matter of drafting, but drafting often shows up defective thinking, and in this instance there has certainly been defective thinking. There is no reason why the assembly should go to United Kingdom Departments for advice. It can go to the Secretary of State for Wales, who presumably is considered to come within the ambit of the phrase "United Kingdom government departments". After all, he will have nothing much else to do.

Mr. Wigley: I should have thought that it was fairly clear that the Welsh Office is a UK Department for this purpose. The new clause covers the Secretary of State for Wales, but it also covers other Departments. It includes the Treasury—with which a link may well be needed—as well as Departments such as the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. When it comes to national heritage, the relationship between UK and Welsh responsibilities is very unclear.

Mr. Davies: Why on earth should a member of the Welsh assembly be able to demand advice from Her Majesty's Treasury about UK matters? I understand the point about the Secretary of State for Wales. I would not object if the new clause said that a member of the Executive Committee could request advice from staff of the Secretary of State for Wales—although he may not have staff—because, as a member of the Cabinet, he can presumably ask other Departments what effect this or that legislation will have on Wales.
It is being suggested, however, that a member of the assembly should be able to roam around under powers not available to Members of Parliament. I am not in favour of the Official Secrets Act, but it exists. Will members of the assembly sign it when they ask for information? Not only is the new clause misconceived: it shows how much confusion there is.
Subsection (2) asks for a concordat. Apparently, there are to be concordats in any event, because there is a real problem. Perhaps, when he responds to—and, I hope, rejects—this rather silly new clause, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will tell us when we shall see those concordats. Will they appear before Third Reading? My right hon. Friend indicates that that is possible. How will we be able to debate them, and with whom will they be drawn up? I cannot imagine that the assembly and the Cabinet Office will have their own little concordat. I do not see where the Cabinet Office comes into it.

Mr. Wigley: May I press the right hon. Gentleman, to ensure that I fully understand his objection? Does he object to the fact that we refer to a member of the

Executive Committee? Does he assume that there would be some links on a civil service level between those serving the Executive in Cardiff and civil servants here, given that we have a unified civil service?

Mr. Davies: That is not what the new clause says.

Mr. Wigley: I asked the right hon. Gentleman a question.

Mr. Davies: There is not much point in the right hon. Gentleman asking me. We are debating his new clause, and his new clause says that a Member of the Assembly—an elected Member, albeit a member of the Executive—can roam around Departments and ask civil servants for advice. It goes on to ask for a concordat to ensure that that happens. It makes no sense.
I do not want to go on about the drafting, but subsection (2) also refers to public bodies. Who are those public bodies? Again, Members of the Assembly can roam around and ask them questions. Does that apply to all public bodies? The new clause is wholly misconceived, but that is not the point; the point is that there is complete confusion in the right hon. Gentleman's mind—and, indeed, in his party.

Mr. Livsey: We support the new clause. The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) seems almost to be asking whether there is a right to roam among civil servants, but I do not think that that is the context in which the new clause was tabled. I believe that it would give access to UK civil service expertise in regard to, for instance, important Ministry of Defence issues. There is a danger that a camp may be closed in my constituency, which would have a considerable impact on employment in the area. I am curtailing my speech, but I think that Members of the Assembly should have access to expertise on such matters.

Mr. Evans: I, too will speak briefly.
The right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) referred to the Executive sitting in Cardiff. I am not sure whether such a decision has been made. Presumably that was a Freudian slip, unless there is something going on which we have not yet been told.
Will the Secretary of State clarify the relationship that will exist between his Department, with its own civil service, and the assembly? Obviously, members of the assembly's Executive will make policy at a secondary level, but I suspect that they will want to have constant discussions with the Secretary of State. During our debates, we have been led to believe that there is a great hope that the assembly and the Secretary of State—irrespective of the political colours under which they happen to be flying—will work together in the best interests of the people of Wales. Perhaps he will put some flesh on the bones of the matter to show exactly what the Secretary of State will do after devolution. I suspect that much of his work will be negotiation and consultation with the assembly. Plaid Cymru is trying to have its cake and eat it. It wants the best of both worlds.

Mr. Ron Davies: My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) was absolutely right in his critique of the new clause. The right hon. Member for Caernarfon


(Mr. Wigley) said that there should be consultation between the assembly and Whitehall Departments, but his new clause refers to a
member of the executive committee",
and that is its weakness.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) spoke about relationships. Obviously, there will have to be a close working relationship between the Secretary of State and his Department and the assembly. The better, closer and more clearly defined that relationship is, the better will be the government of Wales. I cannot pretend that in my inside pocket I have a list of do's and don'ts or prescriptions or rules that will apply to ensure that relationship. However, the holder of my office when the assembly is in being will realise that there is a heavy responsibility to ensure that the relationship operates as effectively as possible. I shall write to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley if he requires further information.
I understand why the right hon. Member for Caernarfon moved the new clause, but, as I have said, it is defective and does not seem to achieve what he wants. However, it is right to explore the nature of the relationship between the assembly and Whitehall Departments. It is important to remember that the Welsh Office does not operate in isolation from the rest of Government. There was discussion about the continuing role of the Department for Education and Employment and the Health Department. The assembly will derive its changing powers to operate under secondary legislation from the nature of primary legislation that has been passed by Parliament.
It is important that the desires of the assembly should be transmitted to people in Departments that are responsible for drafting legislation to facilitate the assembly's work. There will certainly be a need for a continuing relationship not only on the non-devolved matters that my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli spoke about—he mentioned the Home Office, the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence—but on devolved matters. At the moment, departmental work proceeds smoothly because information and professional advice are shared, and policies and secondary legislation are developed in consultation within Government. It is a two-way process.
The assembly will want a framework of liaison arrangements with relevant Departments, and they will be based on the existing positive relationships between civil servants in the Welsh Office and their counterparts in other Departments. Of course, those are relationships between civil servants and not between Executive Committee members or assembly Secretaries. The Government concluded that that relationship is best provided by a series of non-statutory concordats, whose nature has already been debated. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli spoke about those.
It is most unlikely that the concordats will be available before Third Reading, but my right hon. Friend will know, and other hon. Members may be interested to know, that I published on Friday a statement of the principles for drawing up concordats. Copies have been placed in the Library. Hon. Members who wish to get a feel of the Government's thinking on the matter should study that document, which consists of two and a half pages. It could not be classified as a ripping good yarn, but it is worth reading.
It will be for the assembly to agree the concordats. In the meantime, we shall work up drafts based on the principle of providing the assembly and Whitehall Departments with the confidence that working relationships will be conducted properly and in accordance with agreed processes such as adequate consultation, and will avoid constraining either the assembly or Whitehall Departments in their fields of competence.

Mr. Wigley: Perhaps I could be clear. Is the Minister saying that the non-statutory concordats that may be developed will enshrine a right to ask for advice at civil servant level from Departments other than the Welsh Office if those Departments are in charge of drawing up legislation that may affect Wales? May I take it that that right would not be unreasonably refused?

Mr. Davies: As I have said, it will be for the assembly to agree the concordats, so I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a categorical assurance about a right. I cannot bind the Government or the assembly on that, but I can make it clear that we shall certainly work up the drafts of the principles.
There must obviously be proper working relationships, and they require an exchange of ideas and information. While I cannot say to the right hon. Gentleman that rights will be enshrined in the concordats, which will be non-statutory, I can assure him that the Government wish to make sure that the concordats provide the necessary framework for consultation between the Government and the assembly.

Mr. Ancram: Last week, the Secretary of State answered a question on concordats and set out the basis on which they would operate. Am I right in thinking that they will not come before Parliament or, indeed, the assembly for debate?

Mr. Davies: We discussed those matters in some detail in earlier proceedings. The concordats will be non-statutory, and they will not be finalised until the assembly is established. As I have said, it will be a matter for the assembly and the Government of the day to decide how those matters are to be presented to Parliament. That is not to say that they will be presented to the House. The concordats will be agreements between the Government and the assembly and will not have any legislative force as a result of measures that have been passed by Parliament. I should be happy to discuss the matter.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Ron Davies: As my right hon. Friend knows, the knife is about to fall, but I shall give way briefly.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Will there be separate concordats for each Department or will there be one giant concordat?

Mr. Ron Davies: Just as there will be not one giant dome but a dome with a baby, so there will not be one giant concordat. I am not promising baby concordats, but there will be a concordat for each Department. We have already explored the matter. The working relationship between the assembly and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be close, and, because of the


European dimension, it will be important. The concordat for that Ministry will be different from those for other Departments in which the assembly's involvement will be less. There will be a series of concordats.
I take direct advice on only a few matters from officials in other Departments. We debated forestry policy earlier, and that is a good example, because on that I am advised directly by officials from the Forestry Commission, which is a public body. Of course, I also receive advice from my own officials.
The new clause provides for almost unfettered rights for assembly Secretaries to request advice from officials in any Government Department or public body. That goes far beyond current practice, and risks placing unreasonable work loads on officials in those Departments without any constraints on cost, time or good working practice. On that basis, we cannot accept the new clause as drafted. However, where appropriate, the relevant concordat will provide for assembly Secretaries to have access to advice on the basis on which I have access now, but it will be via civil servants of the assembly. It will be for them to have relationships via the concordats with Whitehall Departments before feeding the information to the assembly Secretaries.
I hope that the right hon. Member for Caernarfon—having initiated the probing debate that he wanted—has been satisfied by that response. I invite him to withdraw new clause 12.

Mr. Wigley: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that response. Obviously, we will have to wait to see the detail of those concordats before we can reach any firm conclusion on them. However, I am glad that this short debate has facilitated an opportunity for the Committee to give some attention to the matter, and for the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) to ask questions which were clearly worrying him on a matter that would not have been dealt with otherwise in our debates.
On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 14

CONSULTATION WITH BUSINESSES

'.—(1) The Assembly shall make a scheme (referred to in the Act as the business scheme) setting out how the Assembly proposes, in the exercise of its functions, to sustain and promote business in Wales.
(2) The Assembly shall consult with such businesses and business organisations in Wales as it considers appropriate before making, remaking or revising the scheme and in making, remaking or revising the scheme the Assembly shall have regard to any advice which has been given and to any representations which have been made to the Assembly by businesses and business organisations in Wales.
(3) In determining at any time the provisions to be included in the scheme the Assembly shall consider how it intends to exercise such of its functions as relate to matters affecting, or of concern to, business in Wales.
(4) The scheme shall specify—

(a) how the Assembly proposes to consult business and business organizations in Wales about the exercise of such of its functions as relate to matters affecting or of concern to such businesses and organizations, and

(b) how the Assembly proposes to monitor the extent to which any proposed subordinate legislation is consistent with sustaining or promoting business in Wales and the extent to which it imposes obligations or costs on businesses in Wales.

(5) The Assembly shall keep the scheme under review and in the year following each ordinary election shall consider whether it should be remade or revised.
(6) The Assembly shall publish the scheme when first made and whenever subsequently remade and, if the scheme is revised without being remade shall publish either the revisions or the scheme as revised (as it considers appropriate).
(7) After each financial year of the Assembly, the Assembly shall publish a report of how its proposals as specified in the scheme are implemented in that financial year.'.—[Ms Lawrence.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

6 pm

Ms Jackie Lawrence: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 14 would require the assembly to establish a scheme stating its proposals on sustaining and promoting business in Wales. From the commencement of our debates on the Bill, and following publication of the White Paper, the Secretary of State has maintained that the legislation is built around partnership and inclusivity. In clause 64, the Bill is already innovative in stating a commitment to consult business in Wales, which has not previously been consulted. The new clause attempts to recognise that innovation, but goes a little further and gives business interests parity with the interests of both local government and the voluntary sector, which are already more comprehensively provided for in clauses 110 and 111.
The proposals in the new clause attempt to establish a proactive approach in the relationship between the assembly and the business sector, rather than a merely reactive approach by the assembly, which might have a knock-on effect on the Welsh business sector.
I have determined from my discussions with businesses in my constituency that there is widespread support for the Bill's proposals requiring the assembly to assess the cost implications for business of any proposed regulations and to consider businesses' views. There is widespread support also for a strategic approach to economic development in Wales—via the new Welsh Development Agency—by establishing links with the four economic forums, by placing renewed emphasis on indigenous businesses and, therefore, by implication, by placing emphasis on sustainable development.
The Federation of Small Businesses has stated that there are 3.45 million small and medium-sized enterprises across the United Kingdom, and that if the economic climate enabled each of them to take on one more employee, there would be no unemployment in the UK. UK-wide, 80 per cent. of jobs are provided by companies employing fewer than 20 people. In my constituency, that percentage is even higher.
In the spirit of the partnership and inclusivity promised by the Secretary of State, the views of SMEs must be heard and listened to if we are to make real progress in the battle to improve gross domestic product in Wales. Within the framework of the national assembly, there must be a recognition of the role of business in that process. Every effort must be made to improve Wales's ability to produce competitive goods and services.


The assembly's economic structures and policies must promote Welsh business as the basis of improving the standard of living of everyone—not only selected parts of Wales.
Establishing in the Bill a scheme specifying plans to promote and maintain Welsh business will give Welsh business parity with local government and the voluntary sector. Clauses 110, 111 and 33, for example, provide for the assembly—quite rightly—to create a scheme to sustain and promote local government in Wales, to promote the interests of the voluntary sector and to support cultural aspects of Welsh life. However, it is equally right that similar arrangements should be made to promote the interests of businesses in Wales, on which the vitality of the Welsh economy ultimately depends. New clause 14 would meet that need, and ensure that the assembly listened to business and worked in partnership with it. New clause 14 would also have the benefit of ensuring that outside expertise from the business community was available, ensuring that the assembly's Committees were well informed in their decision making.
As a member of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, I have been involved in recent investigations into the effects that the national assembly will have on economic development in Wales. Evidence given to that Committee, which was published last week, shows that business believes that the assembly holds tremendous potential, but also that it is essential that extra burdens are not placed on Welsh business in comparison with business in England. Businesses' concerns related to both the implementation of secondary legislation and to such pragmatic matters as the assembly's handling of issues such as planning appeals and call-ins.
The Confederation of British Industry, for example, feared that proposals to handle in Committee the Secretary of State's current role in determining appeals and call-ins might cause delays that would disadvantage Welsh business. That concern provides a simple example of the need for the assembly to think not only proactively but strategically in maintaining its links with business, and to think through the impact of all its actions on Wales's businesses. A scheme such as that outlined in new clause 14 would create the framework for such an interchange.
Clause 41(2) provides for the assembly to make subordinate legislation provision for Wales that is different from that for England, recognising Wales's and England's different needs. However, it is vital to ensure that businesses in Wales are not disadvantaged in economic development, by having to bear greater compliance burdens than businesses in England.
A local cheese maker in my constituency informed me that the business's compliance burden increased tenfold during the time when the previous Government were in office. The assembly will have the responsibility not only to ensure that that burden is not increased but, I hope, to reduce it. Similarly, the new clause will ensure that a mechanism is established to avoid such increases in compliance burdens.
The opportunities offered to Wales by the establishment of the national assembly, as stated in the Bill, are exciting and innovative. However, the additional benefits gained by implementing a scheme such as that outlined in the new clause would be even more significant.

Mr. Evans: At this juncture, I should declare my interest in having a small business in Swansea, which I

still own, and in having—as have several generations of my family—many years of business experience in the retail trade.

Mr. Ron Davies: Was it handed down?

Mr. Evans: Yes, of course; like new Labour, we believe in the hereditary principle. [Interruption.]
I am generally in favour of new clause 14. I hope that the proposed scheme will make transparent the assembly's plans for supporting businesses.
The super-quango consisting of the Welsh Development Agency, the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Land Authority for Wales will also have policies to promote businesses in Wales. In Wednesday's debate, we discussed the CBI's concern about whether the assembly would meddle too much in the new super-quango's daily functions. The question arises as to whether new clause 14 enables the new WDA to formulate strategic policy and to eliminate confusion. If the new clause does that, it is a good idea.
The new clause's proposals to consider businesses' interests on the same level as those of the voluntary sector and of local government are also absolutely right, so that there is no confusion in the super-quango's demarcation of its various roles.
We shall have to do a bit more than merely pay lip service to our desire to promote business in Wales. I am sure that all political parties in Wales want Welsh businesses to do well, whether they are established by inward investment or are new indigenous Welsh businesses. We want all businesses in Wales to prosper.
We know that businesses in Wales already must confront problems such as the 48-hour working week, a minimum wage and works councils. Moreover, with the introduction of regional development agencies in England, we shall want to ensure that businesses in Wales are able to compete on an equal footing with businesses in the rest of the United Kingdom.
I support the ethos of the new clause. I hope that whatever scheme is set up—irrespective of whether it is under the new clause—consultation will go further than the CBI and the Institute of Directors, as many other all-Wales bodies are equally relevant.
The hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) was absolutely right to mention small businesses, as they represent the vast majority of businesses in Wales. We have to look to that sector to increase employment. We can no longer rely on the large industries that employ 15,000 to 20,000 people to generate extra jobs. Small and medium-sized enterprises are spread around Wales, and they should be given every encouragement, as that will benefit the whole of Wales. We should consult the Federation of Small Businesses and local chambers of commerce throughout Wales and listen carefully to their views on promoting business.
The hon. Lady mentioned that the gross domestic product in Wales is very low, especially in certain areas. That was demonstrated by the reply to my recent question to the Secretary of State for Wales. There is clearly inequality in that respect. Therefore, we need to ensure that areas that are doing badly will be boosted by any new scheme.
On Wednesday, we agreed that "business" should have a wide meaning, and that certainly applies to the new clause. Given yesterday's events, we should remember that many farms in Wales are desperate for support. I hope that any new scheme will also consider how the assembly can establish policies genuinely to assist small businesses in the rural community, and particularly farmers. We must also consider the ripple effect. Businesses that supply farms with tractors and capital goods, and which repair barns and erect fences and walls, are also affected by the current crisis.
The next debate will be about the regional aspect. Any new scheme must reach all parts of Wales.

Mr. Livsey: I congratulate the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) on introducing the new clause. It is absolutely essential that the assembly should consult business. The proposed scheme would provide business advice to the assembly and would undoubtedly benefit the Welsh economy and investment prospects for Wales.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) referred to small businesses, which are particularly important as they are more likely to provide indigenous growth, which is vital to increasing employment and wealth creation throughout Wales. In many of our constituencies, particularly rural ones, up to one third of the population is self-employed. Many self-employed people run small businesses and are often burdened with a great deal of bureaucracy. There will be a need for businesses—particularly small businesses—to liaise with the assembly in respect of how they can best be assisted. There is evidence of a lack of a level playing field for small native businesses as compared with inward investment schemes from other parts of the world. Certainly in mid-Wales, businesses from other parts of the United Kingdom appear to have greater advantages than indigenous enterprises.
Reference has been made to the agriculture industry. About 56,000 people are involved in farming in Wales—I was one of them for a considerable time, although I was never a newsagent. I hope that the new clause will enable a policy to emerge, to assist those small businesses to develop for the benefit of everyone in Wales.

Mr. John Smith: I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) on introducing the new clause, which the Government should consider carefully. It is vital that the new assembly consults business, but there is already a requirement in the Bill for it to do just that. It is a welcome innovation.
We should be careful, however. It is my view that the assembly's relationship with business is crucial to the success of the assembly and to economic development in Wales in the coming years. We have to get that relationship absolutely right. There are dangers in thinking that we can legislate on a relationship between Government and business in Wales and thereby solve most of our problems. It is not quite that simple. We have to establish a relationship that allows business and Government to do what they do best without interference.

We should not ask business to behave as a philanthropic or democratic organisation or expect Government to behave as a business. Traditionally, the record on that is not terribly good.
Wales has been particularly good at establishing just such relationships. Our economic success in respect of inward investment has been due almost exclusively to the "team Wales" approach and has set the standard for the rest of the United Kingdom. It is one reason why other regions look to us with envy—and so they should—in respect of attracting direct foreign investment. However, trying to attract the English investment to which the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) referred presents a more difficult problem. We have to be clear about making sure that we get our fair share.
We should remember that London and the immediate surrounding area accounts for 40 per cent. of our GDP per capita. Wales has the lowest percentage in the United Kingdom and the gap is widening, so we have to take a balanced approach to developing indigenous small and medium-sized companies. Of course we have to do that, especially in areas that depend on small businesses, but we must also recognise that we must continue the battle to attract our fair share of United Kingdom investment and build clusters of small Welsh companies to service incoming companies. That means that we have to get the formula right, so I ask the Government to consider the new clause carefully.

Mr. Wigley: I welcome the opportunity that the new clause provides to examine the opportunities for business. The National Assembly for Wales should provide a stimulus for the business sector and encourage people to take the initiative, take risks and set up enterprises because of the atmosphere of confidence that we hope will be engendered. It should not tie businesses in knots and prevent them from undertaking ventures.
In examining the phrasing of the new clause, I fear that businesses might expect to play a greater role in determining policy than might be possible in practice. The hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) gave the example of the town and country planning function. Businesses are understandably worried that the processes may be slowed down. They may hope that subsection (4) would provide them with a means of influencing planning decisions as
matters affecting or of concern to
them. That might give them inappropriate leverage in the planning function. If the provisions are to mean anything, businesses will want such influence, but it may not be possible to provide it in the mechanism for even-handed planning at assembly level.
The assembly must feel itself to be a partner with business and industry in Wales, working hand in hand with them to create the conditions for a thriving economy. The hon. Lady obviously has the creation of such a partnership in mind. The thrust of the new clause must be of relevance to the Government and the assembly.

Mr. Dalyell: I should like to raise a practical problem. Last year, I had the good fortune of opening a branch unit of Personnel Hygiene Services in the small village of Blackridge in West Lothian. The Secretary of State will know that the headquarters of Personnel Hygiene Services are in his constituency, in the Western industrial estate in


Caerphilly—the postcode is CF83 1XH. I expect that he knows it well. They are good people. The Welsh leaders were most welcome among us.
However, the company has a problem. On 19 February, Mr. Louis Howe wrote to me on behalf of the company about the Special Waste Regulations 1996. He said:
Of particular interest is point two, which brought to the attention of the Environment Agency the fact that the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency are interpreting the Regulations differently to the Environment Agency.
We find this particularly annoying as we believed the establishment of the Agencies would lead to common national standards enabling us to standardise our practices and procedures nationally. Unfortunately, we must now regard England/Wales and Scotland as two separate entities and we wonder what disparities will occur in the future to further complicate our businesses.
The House of Commons should be careful about complicating people's businesses. I shall ask the relevant Ministers for the full answers to the details in the letter. Such problems are bound to arise when, to use the phrase of my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), we start unbundling the United Kingdom.

Mr. Gareth Thomas: I accept the sentiments behind the new clause. The premise is that because small and medium-sized enterprises are so important for the Welsh economy, it is essential that the legislation facilitates a partnership between them and the assembly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) said.
No doubt my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will refer to clause 64, which provides for a regulatory appraisal before general subordinate legislation is approved by the assembly. The effect of legislation on small business will be taken into account in the appraisal. However, that clause does not go far enough. The Government should take on board the points made so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence). Small businesses are vital. Clause 64 refers to a regulatory appraisal simply in the context of subordinate legislation. That is narrow in scope, contrasting with the general reference in the new clause to the functions of the assembly. Clause 64(2) says that an appraisal will not be necessary if it is
inappropriate or not reasonably practicable".

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Win Griffiths): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) on presenting the new clause in a positive spirit, with the strong support of all sectors of business in Wales. She has clearly had considerable consultation with the larger business sector and small businesses. I am also pleased that the Opposition are taking a new constructive view, with the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) supporting the important issues raised in the new clause. My hon. Friends the Members for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) and for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) raised some relevant points, which I shall try to deal with later. Coming in from the flank, the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) also supported the principles of the new clause.
We have always believed that the assembly should provide an environment in which business can flourish. In our White Paper, "A Voice for Wales", we laid great

stress on the importance of the assembly's role in creating a growing and sustainable economy. That will largely be a matter for the policies of the assembly, which we should not attempt to predetermine in the Bill. As a democratic body, the assembly must develop its own policies and account to its electorate for their effects. We can create an effective institutional framework for it.
We have created a mechanism to ensure that the assembly's legislative procedures take proper account of their effect on business. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West mentioned clause 64, which provides for statutory regulatory appraisal. That is a significant and radical legislative innovation in Britain, which the CBI has recognised and welcomed.
The new clause is a different matter, going beyond that. In providing for the assembly's relations with local government, the voluntary sector and business, we are not trying to create a blockbuster clause to deal with all the issues, such as sustainable development. We have tried to tackle the issues in a way that will be suitable for each sector. For local government, we have a duty to promote, a scheme and the partnership council—that builds on the existing concordat with local government and the established negotiating machinery. For the voluntary sector, we have consultation arrangements and a duty to promote, building on and strengthening the existing consultation arrangements and the concordat that we are finalising. For business, we have the statutory recognition of a process of regulatory appraisal.
The new clause would knit all those factors together and add them on top of statutory regulatory appraisal. That would create a risk of greater complexity and a slowing down of decision making, referred to by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley. The assembly could become too bureaucratic, which is what business fears most.
We shall resist the detail of the new clause, but I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire that we accept the spirit of it: there should be regular, open and constructive dialogue between business and the assembly—not just with big business but with small business, as the hon. Member for Ribble Valley said, and not just with traditional industries but with business in rural areas. My hon. Friends the Members for Vale of Glamorgan, for Clwyd, West and for Preseli Pembrokeshire all laid stress on encompassing all business in order to get the framework right.
We propose to return to the matter with a Government amendment. In the light of that, I invite my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire to withdraw the motion.

Ms Lawrence: I thank the Minister very much for accepting the new clause's principles. Bearing in mind his commitment to take them on board, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 21

DECISIONS AFFECTING VITAL INTERESTS OF A REGION

`.—(1) No legislative, administrative or other decision shall be made by the Assembly which the presiding officer determines might reasonably affect the vital interests of any region, unless the same shall have been approved by a resolution of the Assembly which was itself supported by at least one third of the Assembly members in that region.

(2) In making such determination, the presiding officer—

(a) may not be overruled by any resolution of the Assembly, and
(b) shall have regard for the views of the region possibly affected through its regional committee and the individual members thereof, which views shall be binding upon the presiding officer unless he certifies that he is satisfied that the same are without any reasonable weigh.'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 24—Decentralisation within Wales—
'.—The Assembly shall give active consideration to the decentralisation of appropriate functions from Cardiff to other parts of Wales, and shall actively seek to encourage other public sector bodies over which it has control, or which are answerable to it, to do likewise.'.

Mr. Ancram: It is appropriate that we are debating this important new clause on 2 March, the day after St. David's day. I genuinely regret the absence of a St. David's day debate. I was looking forward to participating in my first such debate, as I was told that they were occasions on which matters relating to all interests and parts of Wales could be properly aired. I only hope that the absence of such a debate this year is not a forerunner for future decisions and the beginning of the marginalisation of Welsh Members of Parliament following devolution.

Mr. Gareth Thomas: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there could hardly be a more appropriate subject for a debate the day after St. David's day than the constitutional future of Wales?

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening. I said that it was most appropriate that we were debating the new clause on this date. I was merely making the point that I hope that we are not having a St. David's day debate just because we are having this debate. For the sake of hon. Members who represent Welsh constituencies, who will continue to do so after devolution, I hope that we are not seeing an end to the traditional St. David's day debate, which was certainly welcomed by Welsh hon. Members, if not the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas).

Mr. Ron Davies: My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) would not know, because he was not a Member during previous debates.

Mr. Ancram: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will advise his hon. Friend on the value of St. David's day debates.
The new clause stems directly from the result of the referendum on 18 September, when the people of Wales—we cannot avoid the fact that, more precisely, just over 25 per cent. of the people of Wales—voted for an assembly. That tiny minority, about which much has already been said, was not replicated evenly across Wales.

Indeed, Wales was effectively split down the middle. The most significant aspect of the result was the regional variation in the yes and no votes. It reflected deep differences and different outlooks—and, indeed, fears—between the various parts of the Principality. The geographic split in the vote was both instructive and not a little alarming. As politicians who are used to studying the nuances of votes, we should be most unwise to ignore the way in which the votes were distributed.
I may not be Welsh, nor can I claim to know Wales as well as I know Scotland but, since June, I have travelled extensively in Wales and regularly visited various parts. It does not take a great deal of expertise to realise that Wales is fundamentally divided. It is not just, as one Labour Member said, that Offa's Dyke has moved west, but that the north fears domination by the more populous south, the east expects and fears favours for the west, and both English and Welsh speakers fear losing out to one another.
I think that we all realise that the north looks not to the south for its economic centre of gravity but to Merseyside and beyond. Monmouth feels more affinity with its erstwhile historic English county neighbours than with its quarter of a century of Welshness. There is fear, resentment and a feeling of a democratic voice being ignored. To turn a blind eye to that would risk storing up immense problems for the future and build in a destabilising factor of unacceptability in the assembly. That would serve nothing, least of all the concept of devolution in Wales.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I want to pull up the right hon. Gentleman on the travesty of history in referring to Monmouth and Wales being connected for a quarter of a century. He may recall that the only reason why Monmouthshire has any English connection is that the Laws in Wales Acts of 1535 and 1542 placed Monmouthshire in the Oxford circuit for judicial purposes—but that was all. One only has to look at the place names in Monmouthshire. In fact, in Herefordshire, the right hon. Gentleman will find a similar good dose of Welsh place names. It could be argued that Offa's Dyke should be moved a little east.

Mr. Ancram: I listen with great care to what the Minister has to say. However, judging by my visits to Monmouth and the correspondence that I have received from there, his view is not unanimously held. I shall be corrected if historically I am wrong, but I think that Monmouth was made a county of Wales in 1972, having previously been a county of England. [Interruption.] I shall certainly be corrected.

Mr. Grieve: My right hon. Friend may care to bear in mind when praying in aid the position of Herefordshire that, if questions of national identity are anything to go by, during the disestablishment of the Church of Wales, the parishes on the Radnorshire side of the border were offered the choice of whether to stay in England, and they


chose to stay in England. The argument that, somehow, Herefordshire should always be viewed differently is complete bunkum.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The argument is straying into English matters. I should be grateful if the Committee returned to the new clause.

Mr. Ancram: I accept your strictures, Mr. Lord, and turn back to regionalisation in Wales.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ancram: Yes, I always enjoy giving way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Morgan: On Wales and Monmouthshire, I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman has committed the most ghastly historical solecism. Monmouthshire was never in England. For centuries, legislation has referred to Wales and Monmouthshire, which clarified Monmouthshire's position. That is anything but Monmouthshire being in England. To say that, since Monmouthshire was not in Wales, it must therefore be in England is completely wrong. The right hon. Gentleman should withdraw that remark straight away before he receives letters from history teachers throughout Wales—and England.

Mr. Ancram: I said that I stood open to correction. The hon. Gentleman used a fair amount of what the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) was accused of the other day: legalistic talk. The position is absolutely clear. The referendum results
showed a marked difference in views between north Wales and south Wales and between east and west Wales".
I do not think that any of us would deny that
we need to do a lot more work to bring Wales together.
We must continue to listen to what people in Wales tell us.

Mr. Ron Davies: The right hon. Gentleman is compounding his mistakes. First, he is making a grave error in trying to overemphasise the counts that were conducted on the basis of unitary authorities. They were merely the mechanisms for counting. The count itself was an all-Wales count. As history recalls, in that referendum, the people of Wales voted yes. The right hon. Gentleman's second error is to disregard the thousands of people in the unitary authorities of Monmouth, Wrexham, Flint and Conwy—the local authorities that voted no—by suggesting that they share a monolithic view that there should not be an assembly. That is just not so. There is a broad base of support right across Wales. He should also have regard to the fact that the swing in Monmouth from the 1979 vote was huge.

Mr. Ancram: The right hon. Gentleman says that, when I say that the referendum
showed a marked difference in views between north Wales and south Wales and between east and west Wales
and that

we need to do a lot more work to bring Wales together"— [Official Report, Welsh Grand Committee, 18 November 1997; c. 12.]
I am compounding my error; but those are not my words—they are his, spoken in the Welsh Grand Committee on 18 November. It seems strange that, when I quote them back to him, I am told that I am compounding an error and that I have somehow misunderstood the position. When I read his words of 18 November, I agreed with him and because I am repeating what he said, I hoped that he would agree with me, but that may be too much to hope for.
The point is that nothing in the legislation as it stands works to bring Wales together. Nothing heals the rifts or quells the fears that the Government have created by this legislation and which, as the Secretary of State admits, were reflected in the referendum result. In the setting up of regional Committees, there is a cosmetic attempt to assuage the fears of north Wales, but, in practice, that is a meaningless gesture, and north Wales knows it. The southern-dominated assembly gets to decide how many regions there will be; it draws up the boundaries for those regions; and, because the regional Committees are only advisory, they can simply be ignored by the southern-dominated assembly.
In short, nothing in the Bill addresses the fears and concerns of people outside south Wales. People in the north of Wales will have watched the cavalier way in which the Secretary of State cast aside their bids to home the currently itinerant National Assembly for Wales. The fear is not temporary: it is a fear of long-term, if not permanent, domination. In any democracy, the fear of permanent domination by a majority is a recipe for ultimate breakdown. We cannot allow such a democratic deficit to be built into the new National Assembly for Wales, first, because that would be a mockery of its name and, secondly, because it would create a long-term legacy of resentment.
I accept that our new clause might not provide all the answers, but it is designed to build in a safety net that would bring some much-needed comfort and reassurance to the Welsh people, both those who live outside the south and those who live in the south. Essentially, the new clause would ensure that any decision that might affect the vital interests of a particular region would have to be authorised by a vote of the assembly in which at least one third of the Members from the region affected—however they were elected—gave their approval. That is a variation on the principle of weighted voting, which is often used in cases of this nature to mitigate what would otherwise become an oppressive majority.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I am interested in the underlying principle. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that south Wales is more populous than the rest of Wales: south Wales contains about 2 million people out of the 3 million living in Wales as a whole, and if industrial south Wales were compared with north Wales, the population ratio might even be 4:1. However, the right hon. Gentleman was always against devolution, even though Wales had only about 5 per cent. of the United Kingdom population, whereas England had about 85 per cent. of the population. Why was he not in favour of devolution if he believes that people worry about being dominated by a majority with different political patterns?

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman was obviously concentrating so hard on campaigning for the yes vote


that he did not listen to the arguments made on the no side during the referendum campaign. We argued that the White Paper opened up the danger but provided no solution to it and that, unless a solution were found, it would be a fundamental flaw that could undermine the concept of devolution in the longer term. That fear was clearly shown in the way in which votes were distributed within Wales.

Mr. Morgan: indicated dissent.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman may shake his head but, according to The Guardian of 20 September, the Prime Minister said in Downing street the day after the referendum:
We must take account of the narrowness of the margin and that is why we carry on, allaying their fears, and making sure they know that this is about decentralising power.
The Independent of the same day quoted the Prime Minister as saying:
moves to create a Welsh assembly would carry on while the Government concentrated on 'allaying the fears of people that were expressed during the campaign'.
The Prime Minister accepted that there were fears, that the margin was narrow and that something had to be done to address that; but, having waited since the referendum to find out what measures were to be taken to address those fears, we find that there is none. For that reason, we tabled our new clause. We are trying to supply what the Prime Minister inferred would be produced by the Government, but which they have singularly failed to produce.

Mr. Morgan: It is the consistency of the right hon. Gentleman's argument that I am questioning. If that is what he believes, given the 4:1 ratio between the populations of industrial south Wales and north Wales, why was he against Wales being given any devolved powers, given that, in the United Kingdom, there is a 17:1 ratio between the populations of England and Wales?

Mr. Ancram: I am finding it difficult to understand whether the hon. Gentleman believes that it is healthy that one part of Wales may be able permanently to dominate another. Those who believe in devolution think that that is wrong and, if devolution is to work, we need to apply the sort of remedy that is contained in our new clause.
The one-third threshold is not a major hurdle and it is not obstructive—it is reasonable. The test of what decisions should be subjected to the threshold would be for the Presiding Officer to determine, having clear regard to the views of the regional Committee. It is right that the Presiding Officer should be able to exercise independent judgment as to whether to apply the threshold. I suspect that such decisions would most often involve economic and industrial issues, where fairness was essential to the future economic cohesion of Wales as a whole; or cultural or social matters, where parity of esteem was crucial to the smooth working of devolution. Given the nature of Wales and of the referendum result, it is surprising that Labour Members find it so difficult to accept our fairly modest remedy.
The overall intention is not to create gridlock, but to ensure that, in specific and important matters, the interests of any region cannot be overridden roughshod by a geographical majority. The provision would probably not be used often, but where and when it was used, it would work to bring Wales together. It would provide a protection that democracy would welcome, but that Wales's geography denies. It would give teeth to the concept of regions within Wales, which the current proposal for toothless advisory Committees singularly fails to do. It would remove the causes of the real concern and fear that have been expressed to me in my travels. It would reduce hostility by giving all parts of Wales the confidence to try to make devolution work, in the knowledge that it was no longer weighted to work against their interests.
The new clause would remove one of the deepest flaws in the Bill and the nature of devolution to the assembly as proposed. It is central to making devolution work constructively, rather than destructively. In that spirit, I commend the new clause to the Committee.

Mr. Dafis: I rise to speak in support of new clause 24, which stands in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I should say first that the reference to Cardiff in the new clause is not based on any assumption about the location of the assembly; it refers to the relocation of functions that are currently at Cardiff. We want that sort of radical decentralisation.
New clause 24 represents an infinitely preferable approach to dispersing activities and power than that suggested in new clause 21, which would place a totally unreasonable constraint on the assembly's ability to develop national policies, and would make it difficult to take any strategic decision that could be interpreted as being to the disadvantage of any region. It is a curious idea that the final decision about whether the interests of a region were seriously threatened should be taken by the Presiding Officer of the assembly—I cannot imagine that the Speaker of the House of Commons would want, even after consulting hon. Members from throughout the United Kingdom, to decide whether a policy constituted a sufficiently serious threat to a region that it should be changed. The proposal is inappropriate and improper.
I despair of the Tory party. Centralists have always advocated the policy of divide and rule. The British empire was adept at it, and the Tory party is the remnant of the British imperial way of thinking. New clause 21 would entrench the purported divisions that Conservative Front Benchers say that they want to heal. Does the Conservative party intend to campaign for election to the assembly with such an appallingly negative agenda? If so, it will find it difficult to enter the assembly.
New clause 24 would create a presumption in favour of decentralising functions throughout Wales. There are various reasons for such an approach, including such elementary ones as the financial savings that would come from locating functions in areas of lower property values. More importantly, we must use the location of Government Departments, functions and arm's-length bodies—such as the remaining non-departmental public bodies—as an instrument of regional policy.
That policy has been widely used at the UK level to create employment: when the Employment Service was created, it was located at Sheffield, and one of the best


examples in Wales is the establishment of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency at Swansea. I welcome the further moves in that direction in Wales. The Welsh European programmes executive will be based in the Cynon valley and in Machynlleth, bringing high-quality jobs to areas that need such a transfusion.
Unfortunately, the trend has largely been in the opposite direction. In 1993, I think, it was decided to transfer a section of the Welsh Office Agriculture Department from Trawscoed outside Aberystwyth to Cardiff, which led to significant job losses in an area where such jobs are scarce and getting scarcer. That was done on the spur of the moment. The decision was taken in June or July 1993 on the basis of short-term cost savings—it was certainly a short-sighted policy—and was a disgraceful example of the tendency to centralise for the most superficial reasons and in the teeth of strong opposition. I do not believe that it would have happened if a national assembly had existed, as the assembly—unlike the Welsh Office at the time—would have had a strategic view of the location of jobs. Another example was the removal from Aberystwyth to England of all but an outpost of the British Geological Survey.
I trust that both those actions will be reversed over time—soon, in the case of the Welsh Office Agriculture Department. The department would appropriately be located in rural Wales, particularly rural Ceridigion—although I would say that, wouldn't I? That would create high-quality, well-paid employment and the spin-off of other job opportunities.
The use of electronic communications would facilitate further decentralisation as the pattern for future activity in Wales, and we should consider the assembly's activities in that context. It has been suggested that there should be access points to the assembly in various parts of Wales. I hope and trust—that is the right word to use—that the National Library of Wales will, in effect, be the assembly's library. It would be absurd to try to replicate the massive resource at Aberystwyth wherever the assembly is located—electronic communications would make feasible the use of that tremendous resource.
Other Welsh Office departments, such as the one responsible for industry, could be located in the valleys, Swansea or even further west. The new Welsh Development Agency must operate in a much more decentralised way than before. It seems inevitable that a core headquarters, which will be responsible for strategic functions, should be located in the capital, but the regional offices should also be powerful, and should become centres for the development of expertise in some of the agency's functions. Business services, for example, could be located in one of the regional offices, as could the policy unit itself.
The regional office for the central region—the canolbarth, as we call it in Welsh—should certainly be responsible for rural policy for the whole of Wales. I also believe that the office should be in the west, which tempts me to utter the name Aberystwyth once again, although perhaps that would be to overstress my point. The location of the WDA office for the central region will be a live and real issue.
The new super-TEC—the new training and enterprise council—should be established in the south-east, but away from Cardiff and Swansea: in the valleys, perhaps. The Welsh Language Board or its functions—however

they are to be delivered—would appropriately be located in Welsh-speaking areas, and why not move the Arts Council from Cardiff?

Mr. John Smith: I have much sympathy with the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Does he want anything in Cardiff?

Mr. Smith: I think that there is case for rewriting the new clause to mention Ceredigion. Surely the location of those bodies is for the new assembly to decide; it is not our business to pre-empt it. The hon. Gentleman used the word trust—he should trust the assembly to make the right decisions.

Mr. Dafis: Yes, but it is our business to probe policy issues, consider the ways in which the assembly will operate and lay down some principles in advance. Decisions that may be made before the assembly is established could also benefit from the application of those principles.

Mr. Morgan: The hon. Gentleman is talking about the principles. I wonder whether he wants to leave Cardiff, the capital city of Wales, with anything at all. The last speech along those lines that I heard from a major political leader was by Pol Pot in Cambodia, who believed in getting rid of the capital city altogether and dispersing its entire population to the countryside. Is that really what the hon. Gentleman has in mind?

7 pm

Mr. Dafis: The hon. Gentleman is being untypically facetious. I see no danger of Cardiff being left with nothing; a lot is happening in, and concentrating on, Cardiff. No less a person than Mr. Russell Goodway, in his advocacy of locating the assembly at Cardiff, suggested that certain departments should be located well outside Cardiff, and mentioned the Welsh Office Agriculture Department as an example.
Spending on government is an important reality, and the dispersal of that spending is worth advocating seriously. In the new Wales that we want to create, we should certainly consider the dispersal of the high-status activity that is associated with government; of prosperity; of vitality; and of influence. We are devising a system of government at the very time when electronics is revolutionising communications, and when distance, however great, is becoming far less of an obstacle to the co-ordination of activities.
It is also important to overcome the perception that the government of Wales will be remote from the people. That is a similar theme to that of the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), but I hope that I am being more constructive and positive about it. On the United Kingdom level, that perception has been influential in bringing about the devolution proposals enshrined in the Bill and in the Scotland Bill.
We must avoid the perception—however inaccurate—of a single centre where the members of the power elite socialise, drink coffee, wine and dine, and cobble together


deals that serve their own interests rather than those of the people at large. Much of the debate about the location of the assembly has sprung from such concerns.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument closely. Will he be more specific? When he talks about the perceived elite, is he referring to the Government party?

Mr. Dafis: When I think of elites, I normally think of Tories; that is deeply ingrained in the culture in which I was brought up, so I shall not apologise for it. Elites are people who, for various reasons, have power and influence and tend, if their power is not curtailed, to look after their own interests.

Mr. Grieve: Is that not a most compelling argument for new clause 21?

Mr. Dafis: I spoke about that new clause earlier, and I do not need to go over that ground again. It is an absolutely cockeyed new clause.
We have the opportunity from the outset to establish an approach to government that avoids the geographical imbalance that has disfigured Britain; that typifies the United Kingdom; and that people fear may be replicated in Wales.

Mr. Gareth Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a programme to get civil servants, some of whom must necessarily be based in south Wales, out of their bunkers in Cardiff or elsewhere and into the regions, to educate them about how people live in other parts of Wales, is as important as permanently dispersing them around the country? Of course, that applies equally to civil servants in the mainstream United Kingdom civil service.

Mr. Dafis: I am sure that there are civil servants sitting not far from us at the moment who are keen to educate themselves about the needs of Wales in its entirety. Among Welsh Office civil servants, I have never come across anything but a desire to understand the needs of Wales as a whole; the problem has often been with their political masters.
New clause 24 was drafted to highlight at the outset the importance of the principle that I have outlined.

Mr. Livsey: The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) made a divisive speech in support of new clause 21. He could perhaps have concentrated more on the advantages of having strong regional bodies within Wales. He talked about permanent domination and democratic deficits. None of us wants to be permanently dominated, but in 33 of the final 50 years of this century we have tended to be dominated in a certain way. The assembly will set us free from such domination.
We do not want to replicate that domination in the Welsh assembly. The regions are vital, and there is a great difference between all the regions in Wales. I often liken Wales to a jigsaw puzzle in which people in different parts of the country think entirely differently.
The challenge to the assembly is to unify the regions and give them a common purpose. We need the generosity of spirit to reach out into all the regions of Wales and

bind them together; but they also need their independent voices. I agree with the right hon. Member for Devizes that there is not much in the Bill to give us hope. Ministers must give us more meat on the bone—if I may use that phrase—for the regions of Wales.
The regional Committees must have real teeth. Ministers must prove to us that that will be the case. They have alluded to the matter in rhetoric, but they have not made any concrete proposals. I hope that they will not ride roughshod over the regions. That phrase was used by the right hon. Member for Devizes. No region of Wales would want to be ridden roughshod over by Swansea, Cardiff, Wrexham or anywhere else. The regions want a life of their own, but in close association with the assembly.
What are the vital interests referred to in the new clause? A definition would be most illuminating and would assist me in making a judgment on the new clause. Inclusivity is vital, but we need to ensure that the regions have a fair deal; after all, they have strong characteristics and individual needs. We need to be persuaded that the legislation will meet that challenge.
The notion of one third of the assembly's members having to support any decision that might affect the vital interests of a region is interesting, although I am not sure why it should be specifically one third. I have more confidence in new clause 24 when it provides that the assembly should decentralise functions from Cardiff. That provision is similar to an amendment that we have tabled recently. Functions should be decentralised from Cardiff—or Swansea, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) pointed out—to the regions whenever possible and we should encourage public bodies to do likewise. I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of that point.
I was professionally involved in the work done by Trawscoed. It was obvious that the staff were doing a job that was relevant to rural Wales and accessible to a large proportion of the population—the farming community in particular. When I lived and worked in Aberystwyth, the administrative section of the Welsh Office Agriculture Department was removed to Cardiff and I did not think that that was an especially good idea. The assembly will need to consider such moves.
We want to enable more local people to become involved in the decision making in their areas. We all know about the difficulties in Wales of communication and transport and the inadequacy of the infrastructure. It is vital that the assembly appears inclusive; the regions must have adequate powers. The assembly must react to and accept proposals from the regions. Many people from the regions of Wales will have great confidence in an assembly that behaves like that, and I hope that the Minister will convince us that it will do so. Otherwise, we shall have to adopt the new clause to ensure that it does so.

Mr. Gareth Thomas: I oppose new clause 21. I understand the political motives behind it; it is clear that, in the speech of the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), we have heard a rehearsal of the campaign that will be conducted by the Conservatives during the elections to the National Assembly for Wales in May next year. Their campaign will be based on divisiveness. We had a fascinating insight into it tonight.
The right hon. Member for Devizes struck a chord, however, because a rudimentary reading of Welsh history shows that the country has been prone to parochialism and regional tensions. One need only consider the history of the Welsh princes and the abject failure to establish any political unity in Wales until recently to see that. Wales is a parochial country and it is proud of its parochialism.
At St. David's day dinners such as those I have attended recently, the first question asked is not, "Which school did you go to?"—as Conservatives might ask each other—but, "Where do you come from?" People want to know exactly which part of the valley or which part of a community others are from because they take great pride in their locality. However, it would be wrong to institutionalise that diversity and to mistake the message of Welsh history and our rich patchwork of communities. It is pessimistic to believe that Wales is incapable of political unity; that is taking cynicism too far.
I reject the premise behind the new clause, which is typical of the patronising attitude of Conservative Members to the Welsh people. Conservatives think that the Welsh people are incapable of forming a political community: that is wrong. The Bill takes great care to address regional tensions in Wales and it is right to do so. The voting method is clearly designed to enable more inclusive debate in Wales.
The new clause raises practical considerations. The Presiding Officer would be in an invidious position if he or she had to decide what constituted the vital interests of a region. How should a region be defined? Extraordinarily, the official Opposition define regions as coterminous with European constituencies, but that definition is unworkable. The new clause is divisive and would be a disincentive to the constructive, bridge-building approach that the Welsh people need to improve their economic and social status. I reject the new clause and I deplore the sentiments behind it.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: I shall speak in favour of new clause 21. I should have preferred the opportunity to speak in favour of new clause 17 but, unfortunately, it was not called for debate.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman should not mention any clause or amendment that has not been selected by the Chair.

Mr. Swayne: I apologise, Mr. Martin. New clause 21 will do very well.
It is appropriate that the new clause provides a mechanism that would address the interests and outlook of the regions that are at variance with the Welsh mean. If we take Monmouthshire as an example, we find that in the referendum only 10,592 voters were in favour of the assembly, against 22,403—more than double—who voted against. That was true not only in Monmouthshire: it was mirrored all the way down the March. Such results should be set in the context of an overall majority in Wales for the assembly of only 6,700-odd.
The Prime Minister said that sensitivity would be exercised. New clause 21 would be evidence of such sensitivity, were it accepted. However, the sensitivity shown in the remarks made by the Secretary of State for

Wales only two hours ago, when he said that the people of Wales won on the night of the referendum, leaves those of us who are anxious about the future of the interests of the regions I have mentioned feeling that our anxiety is well placed. Such regions are characterised by small market towns whose economic and political outlook is at variance with that of industrial south Wales, and our anxiety about them must be addressed.
The Secretary of State would do well to appreciate that Owen Glendower failed to take Monmouth and, shortly after that, he met his end. The Monmouthshire and Berwick-upon-Tweed Act 1756 specifically excluded Monmouthshire from the provisions of legislation pertaining to Wales except when it was explicitly included.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: First, perhaps the hon. Gentleman could tell us more about how and when Owen Glendower met his end, because—according to the history books—nobody knows how he met his end. Secondly, what is the hon. Gentleman's definition of a region?

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman will not make any mention of Owen Glendower and how he met his end, because the hon. Gentleman is talking about new clause 21.

Mr. Swayne: I shall not pursue that matter. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) asked about the definition of a region. We are constrained by the Bill and the new clause, but I acknowledge that another definition might have been more appropriate. To avoid being ruled out of order, I shall not pursue the subject any further. All I would say is that there must be a mechanism to address these issues.
I know that Labour Members dispute that because, on Second Reading, there was much talk of a new politics. It was said that the assembly would be very different; that it would have a gender balance; that it would be inclusive of all minorities; and that children would trip about in the aisles. In all, it was going to be an assembly for the new Jerusalem. I wondered where I had heard all that before—and then it dawned on me; we are back in Praise-God Barebones' "Parliament of the Saints" in the 1640s.
However, setting that aside, there must be a means of securing the interests of the regions that find themselves unsympathetic to the political outlook of the industrial areas in south wales that will dominate the assembly. New clause 21 provides such a mechanism.

Mr. John Smith: I strongly resist new clause 21, on the ground that it—if nothing else we have heard during seven days in Committee—blows the cover on the Tories. This is the new clause that proves that they have no intention of behaving constructively during the Bill's passage through Parliament or of campaigning during the assembly elections except in the divisive manner that we have heard tonight.
The Tories' hypocrisy is breathtaking. Theirs is the party that opposed devolution tooth and nail to the bitter end; and tonight they expect us to believe that they now want devolved regions within Wales—our country. What a nonsense; what hypocrisy.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman has obviously not read our new clause. We do not set out what the regions


are, other than to accept the definition of electoral region that is already given in the Bill and for which Members will be elected both directly and by the additional member system. We are not inventing those—they are in the Bill. They were created by the Government.

Mr. Smith: Yes—and let me tell you what else this ludicrous new clause does, Mr. Martin. It proves once and for all that its authors have no understanding of what it is to be Welsh and what it is to be part of one nation. The proposal that our new national assembly, the single voice for our country, should be undermined by this bureaucratic nonsense, exposes them for what they are. It is an appalling new clause.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: I am struck by the passion with which the hon. Gentleman speaks. Notwithstanding the known conversion of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) to the assembly when the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) was not looking, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the new clause may be quite constructive? Taken at face value, it may be a constructive protection for regions within Wales. More to the point, there is genuine anxiety in the regions that a centralised southern assembly might discriminate against the regions.

Mr. Smith: I would draw attention to the different ways in which this issue has been dealt with—there is one approach in new clause 21, which is a nonsense, and another in new clause 24, which raises some serious issues about these regional anxieties. That is the difference. [Laughter.] Let the Tories laugh; they may laugh all the way to the next election, when they will be wiped out because of their behaviour during the Bill's passage and in this Committee.
Unfortunately, the new clause lowers the tone of the debate and the behaviour of the Opposition. Instead of constructively criticising the Bill and making realistic suggestions and proposals, they table wrecking new clauses such as the one before us and have no intention of giving the Bill principled support.
My final point is practical. We have already gone out of our way to set up the regional Committees. By doing so, we have recognised the differences within our country—one country, one nation, which is about to inherit its mature nationhood. We have restructured the powerhouse; we are recognising the differences that exist within our country by restructuring the training and enterprise councils. We are fully aware of the differences that exist in our country. The fact that the north-east Wales corridor—

Mr. Ancram: rose

Mr. Smith: I give way to the right hon. Gentleman, but I hope that he will not mess about.

Mr. Ancram: Under the hon. Gentleman's system, how many regions will there be?

Mr. Smith: They will be regions established to reflect the genuine differences and the genuine interests of our people, which do vary.
It is crucial that we throw out, and have nothing to do with, new clause 21. Any country, any democratic body, any democratic forum, must be able to take decisions that are in the strategic interest of the whole constituency. One of the terrible legacies of local government reorganisation in Wales is that the strategic county councils have been done away with and a tier of unitary authorities has been created. Those authorities do a damned good job in representing their own areas but they cannot represent the country as a whole.

Mr. Tim Collins: The hon. Gentleman is waxing lyrical on the importance of clarity in local government in Wales. He has had a moment or two to think about it; will he now answer the question? What number of regions does he favour?

Mr. Smith: This is typical of the behaviour that has characterised tonight's debate. The Tories are not serious; they are out to wreck this constructive Bill. It is vital that there is one voice for Wales: that one national body has the authority to speak for the whole country. For generations, if not centuries, the Tories tried to rule on the principle of divide and rule; they will not get away with it tonight.

Mr. Collins: We had a note of—perhaps unintentional—hilarity from the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith). Earlier, he waxed lyrical about how appalling, ludicrous and scandalous it was that there should be any suggestion of creating regions within Wales. When it was pointed out to him that regional Committees are in the Bill as proposed by the Government, he tried to change tack, but when he was asked—twice—how many regions or regional Committees he wanted, he was unable to say. That may show that there is some confusion on the Labour Benches just as, earlier, there seemed to be some confusion on the Labour Benches about whether Herefordshire should be inside the borders of Wales. Perhaps a new Welsh imperialist party is taking shape on the Labour Benches.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I was only saying that parts of Herefordshire used to be in the diocese of St. David's, that many place names in Herefordshire are Welsh and that at one time it would have been part of Wales.

Mr. Collins: The Minister is making my point for me. Earlier, he suggested that Monmouthshire was as Welsh as Herefordshire, which slightly undermined his argument.
Plaid Cymru Members rightly drew attention to what, from their point of view—and, I suspect, from that of many Labour Members—is the problem with new clause 21. It was said that new clause 21 is unacceptable because similar provisions will not apply in the Westminster Parliament. That slightly gave the game away, because we have been told throughout that the Bill will not create a Parliament and that the assembly will not have a power to make primary legislation. Nor will it have the power to introduce taxation. It is an assembly, not a Parliament comparable to Westminster. If it is argued that new clause 21 would not be accepted by Westminster, that gives part of the game away.
My primary concern, however, is to reveal the heart of the reason new clause 21 is needed. The argument has been voiced a little in this part of the debate, but not


sufficiently during the Committee's consideration of the Bill. New clause 21 is needed to deliver on the clear promises given by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State the day after the result of the referendum, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) referred.
7.30 pm
The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State said that they would take on board the fact that the result was exceptionally narrow, that they would listen to the arguments advanced by the no campaign—which did far better than anyone expected—and that they would present new proposals that would take account of the fact that the referendum result indicated not a huge mandate in favour of change, as the Secretary of State said, but the fact that the Welsh population was at best split down the middle, if not split one quarter in favour and three quarters apathetic or opposed.
Where are those new proposals in the Bill? We have heard a little about the regional Committees, but if we do not know how many regional Committees there are to be, as has been amply demonstrated, it can hardly be said that they are a central part of the Bill or that a great deal of thought has been given to them.

Mr. Dafis: The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) suggested that the regions referred to in the new clause are the electoral regions from which the additional Members will be elected. Are Opposition Members seriously suggesting that we should regard the Mid and West Wales electoral region, which extends from the coast in the north right down through the centre of Wales, including Llanelli, Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire, as a coherent regional entity for the purposes of the new clause?

Mr. Collins: I agree to some extent with the hon. Gentleman. He makes a powerful case against the Bill, which was not introduced by my party, and against the electoral system, which throws up such absurdities. That is what happens when the Government try to introduce a new system of elections—we heard in Home Office questions that five different electoral systems will apply in the United Kingdom during the next 24 months. That is absurd.
As my right hon. Friend said, we are proposing new clause 21 as a genuine attempt to get the Government to deliver on the promises that they made. They were not forced by us to make them. No member of the Conservative party was pulling the strings of the Prime Minister when he came out on the steps of No. 10 after the election and volunteered that the Government would listen and address the issues. The Secretary of State was not bullied or blackmailed into making the announcements that my right hon. Friend quoted earlier. He said that he recognised that the results showed that different parts of Wales had different attitudes towards the national assembly.
It has been suggested that Conservative Members are being divisive, but it was the Secretary of State who said that there were different attitudes in the Welsh regions. The new clause may not be the ideal way to deal with the problem, but no one has come up with a better way. At least there is some substance to the new clause—

unlike the nebulous regional Committees, which seem to have only advisory functions, which can be overruled by the assembly and whose number is to be guessed at or plucked from the mind of the Secretary of State at some time in the future. Now, when the Bill is being considered by the Westminster Parliament, we are not to be told how many regional Committees there will be.
New clause 21 deals with a serious concern. We have heard from the Secretary of State and others who are in favour of the Bill that it is a major problem that needs to be tackled. The new clause deals with it in a responsible way. It provides that where there are to be decisions affecting the vital interests of a region, one third of the representatives of that region should vote in favour of that proposal. That is quite a low threshold by many standards.
The new clause is constructive and would enable the Government to deliver on their promises. It would reflect the fact that the referendum result did not indicate, as we have heard repeatedly from the Secretary of State, that the Welsh people are of one mind and one determination, for they were not, according to the referendum result. Parliament has a responsibility to deliver on the undertakings made from the doorstep of No. 10 that the Bill would be amended to take account of those differences.
We have the chance today, in the discussion on new clause 21, to make the Bill a great deal better and to give the Welsh people what they were led to believe, the day after the referendum, they would get. For that reason, I support new clause 21.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Despite the attempts at elegant advocacy by Conservative Members, new clause 21 remains, as I think was admitted by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), legislative junk mail. They know that it will not work. They are trying to tap into a wellspring of those who voted no, and to use them as a springboard for a modest electoral revival in Wales in the assembly election campaigns, the Euro-elections or the local government elections next year.
I am afraid that Conservative Members are sadly mistaken if they think that trying to balkanise Wales is a constructive way forward. To provide for blocking minorities implies a degree of split in Wales that was not the purpose of the regional Committees, which were proposed in the White Paper and are mentioned in the Bill. Admittedly, only one is specified to serve the northern part of Wales. That may well be a northern Committee, but the rest of the structure of the regions is a matter that can be left until a later date, possibly to the assembly itself, to take account of the views of those elected to the assembly on the question of how many regions are needed in order to administer Wales in an appropriately decentralised way.
To install blocking minorities as the new clause proposes is absurd. It is an attempt to balkanise Wales. It is a sound principle that any new legislative body should not attempt to run before it can walk, but this is a proposal to hobble the Welsh assembly before it can walk.
There must be a balance in a democratically elected Welsh assembly, with a proportional representation component as to a third of the seats, which will enable people who are not of the majority party in any of the


Euro-regions of Wales to have a fair chance to give them an incentive to take part in the election, even though they may never win a majority.
That applies to Conservatives in the south Wales valleys and to Labour people in some remote rural parts of Wales. They may never win a majority, but their supporters have every incentive to vote because the party may have a candidate elected under the list system. It will be inclusive in that respect.
The adoption of a committee system rather than a cabinet system in the modus operandi of the assembly is another way of ensuring that those who may not be able to win a majority nevertheless have some share of power. That also is intended to cover the fact that in areas of Wales there may be people who feel that they are not part of the dominant political culture.
In democracies we always count heads—we count majorities, and majorities could conceivably oppress minorities. We accept that. The ways around it are those that have been proposed: proportional representation, the committee system and the establishment of regional Committees, with an obligatory northern Committee and others to be sorted out by the assembly or at a later date.
The Welsh assembly must be given room to breathe. It must be able to act and to take a strategic all-Wales view at the times and on the subjects where that is appropriate. It must disperse and decentralise where it can, but it must have the strength to make decisions and to deliver on manifesto promises, taking as many of the people along with it as it can. Democracy requires the ability to get decisions made. To tie the Welsh assembly's legs together before it has had a chance to take a few strides, as new clause 21 would do, is absurd. It is an attempt to say to the assembly, "You don't exist yet, but, before you do, we want to make sure that you will be as weak as possible in case you do something to those who voted no in the referendum or those who vote Conservative in general elections".
Is there any evidence to suggest that, under the proposed structure—given the absence of primary legislative powers and given the existence of an obligatory north Wales Committee, of a proportional representation voting system and of a modus operandi by committee—the assembly will oppress minorities in Wales? We do not know the answer to that question, so why should we assume that the assembly—which, unlike Parliament, will have all sorts of special features designed to prevent oppression of the minority by the majority—will do that?
If those protections are not built into the Westminster system, why should we assume—even before the assembly is established—that it will oppress minorities because many people happen to live in the industrial south and north-east of Wales? It is true that 50 per cent. of the Welsh population live within 25 miles of central Cardiff—that is not a sin, although the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) might think so. That is the population distribution in Wales that we have inherited as a result of the various economic factors that lead people to live where they live. That is the way it is in Wales:

many people live in industrial south Wales. We are heavily outnumbered by sheep in Wales by a ratio of about 9:1.

Mr. Öpik: Sixteen to one.

Mr. Morgan: It is not as many as that—perhaps it is 5:1. The sheep to people ratio in mid and north Wales is different from the ratio in the industrial south. That is due to the nature of economic activities in different areas of Wales.
We cannot, on the basis of some absurd fears, hobble the Welsh assembly with leg-irons before it is established. There are many protections in place as a result of the voting system, the modus operandi, proportional representation, and the obligatory north Wales Committee and the assumption of other regional Committees. If we were to accept new clause 21, myriad other new clauses would be suggested to provide further protection for those who voted no in the referendum. Those people would be offered individual opt-outs so that they would not have to pay obeisance to the Welsh assembly.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman referred to "absurd fears". Were those the fears to which the Prime Minister referred? If not, to which fears did he refer?

Mr. Morgan: The Prime Minister said that the narrowness of the majority in the referendum implied that the Welsh assembly would have to work very hard—and we would have to work hard in framing the legislation—to carry the people of Wales with us and overcome the apathy shown by 49 per cent. of electors who did not vote and those who voted no.
How will we carry those people with us? One thing we must not do is exaggerate their fears and extend the natural centrifugal forces in Wales that are created by the population distribution in industrial south Wales, with the mountains in the middle and another population belt along the north Wales coast. We must overcome those centrifugal forces.
We will not carry the people of Wales with us by balkanising Wales or—like the United Nations mandate in Bosnia—by installing blocking minorities for this or that and giving people the impression that they can opt out. That is not the correct way forward. We must generate enthusiasm for the new Welsh democracy that the legislation creates. We should not let people think that they can opt out in some way: they must opt into the new democratic structure. The Tories are trying to replay the referendum in an attempt to cash in on the high proportion of those who voted no and to create the impression that, in some way, the Tories are looking after their interests by helping them to opt out mentally, as it were, and not be part of the new democratic Wales.
That is an absolutely pernicious way of thinking, which is a reversion to the old Tory colonial mentality: when all else fails, try divide and rule. We will not allow that to happen in our proceedings tonight.

Mr. Grieve: The more I listen to the arguments advanced by Labour Members—particularly the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan)—the more convinced I am about the correctness of new clause 21. The hon. Gentleman manifested real anger and passion


when it was suggested that the new clause might appeal to voters in many parts of Wales. It is extraordinary to suggest that new clause 21 is a wrecking measure and an Opposition conspiracy designed to exploit differences in Wales. That is rather similar to the suggestion that the countryside rally was a conspiracy planned by landowners who gathered together 284,000 forelock-tugging retainers. The two arguments have exactly the same lack of discernment.
7.45 pm
The fact is that tensions are currently present in Wales—the passion with which Government Members have opposed new clause 21 shows that they know that very well. It is a tribute to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) that he recognises that those tensions exist. The question is: will those tensions be addressed?

Mr. Dafis: I did not mention tensions. I spoke about the need to develop a decentralised pattern of government in Wales, unlike the grossly centralised pattern of government that Britain has had for so long.

Mr. Grieve: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if I have misquoted him. I took the thrust of his argument to mean that he recognised that there is immense diversity of view in Wales. We know that from the referendum result. Numerous regions of Wales do not want the assembly. One might infer that they are suspicious of the assembly for a host of different reasons, ranging from a lack of desire for another tier of government to the fact that their regional identity is so markedly different from the areas of south Wales that they believe will become dominant that they are seeking protection.
Those problems will not go away. Over time, the sense of national identity reflected in the comments about a "national assembly"—and descriptions of it as such—may prevail. However, one can only apply one's own experience and what one sees for oneself when one travels through Wales. When I visit Wales, I get the impression that there is immense diversity and a great sense of local identity. Many people are deeply suspicious of the Cardiff assembly.

Mr. Donald Anderson: What about the Swansea assembly?

Mr. Grieve: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. The proposed new clause asks that those factors be recognised in order to prevent the regions from being trampled on by the Cardiff assembly. If that occurs, the consequences will manifest themselves—whether or not the new clause is part of the Bill—in hostility about the way in which the assembly operates. That is the reason why this is a sound and solidly based new clause.

Mr. Anderson: Is the hon. Gentleman privy to information that the rest of us are not in referring to the Cardiff assembly—or is that a general term of Conservative abuse for the Welsh assembly?

Mr. Grieve: I am aware that the assembly appears to be somewhat peripatetic as to its possible final location. I refer to it as the Cardiff assembly because, according to

the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, it will be dominated by the area within 20 miles of Cardiff where the population is. Regardless of whether the assembly is located in Cardiff or in Aberystwyth, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that its composition will be dominated by south Wales by virtue of population distribution. I also thought that the Secretary of State wanted the assembly to be located in Cardiff—the fact that Cardiff does not want it, because Cardiff did not want an assembly in the first place, is another matter.
Fear of domination is something that the Committee should address. It is said that Conservatives believe in divide and rule. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have spent the past six months arguing that we do not want the United Kingdom to be divided, and that we would prefer to maintain a unitary system. It is hon. Members on the Government Benches who have been fermenting discord, but having done so they set up their own imperial entity and seek to dominate other regions within it. That is the fantasy that they have created in their minds as to the way in which government should be conducted. That is a bad principle.
As the Government have accepted, there is tremendous diversity of view in Wales, and the Prime Minister has said that it should be recognised. They should have the courage to accept that and accept the new clause, which protects the regions of Wales. Whether or not these are electoral regions, they are the only ones that we have at the moment. If the Government were creative, they would identify the different regions in Wales and include them by amendment in the Bill. The fact that they have not done so has put the responsibility back on us, and we have done our best.

Mr. Robert Syms: I shall make a brief speech in support of the new clause.
The United Kingdom is the result of relationships that have grown up over quite a long time. The question is: what unites the Welsh? One feature that unites the Welsh is the English. There is a relationship between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Whether on the rugby pitch or trying to represent the Welsh nation, or whether one is making proposals, the reality is that there is a certain unity that the Welsh have had to have as 5 per cent. of the United Kingdom population. Once one devolves power to the Welsh assembly, one changes the nature of that relationship, and there is internal competition from within the Principality for resources. Ministers would be well advised to recognise that the debate, which so far has been in terms of Wales, England, Scotland, and the United Kingdom, will be different with a devolved assembly.
I have sat through the debates on almost all the clauses, and have been struck that whenever resources or the Welsh Development Agency is discussed, or even where the assembly will be based, hon. Members have jumped up to make bids for their respective regions. That is part of politics. We all like to represent our areas, but it is quite clear that there are different agendas in different parts of Wales.
There are worries. Fears have been expressed. None of us wants disunity in Wales. That is not part of the Conservative party's agenda at all. We wish people to work together. From what we have heard during the Bill's consideration, and from the result of the referendum, to


which one must pay attention, we are concerned that many areas of the Principality had, and may still have, concerns about the way in which the assembly will be set up and how it will operate. What we on the Conservative Benches are trying to do, in our most helpful fashion, is to ensure that there is consent and consensus throughout the regions of Wales.
I agree that the regions chosen are not ideal, as they were set by the Government for electoral reasons. We should review the regions to see what interest there is. It is clear that there are differences between north and south Wales. If that were not so, there would not be a north Wales Committee in the Bill. There are differences between east and west Wales, with the exception of Pembroke. There is a diversity within Wales. All we are trying to do is to have that recognised by the assembly.
I hope that the Government will pay attention to the new clause. If they do not accept it at this stage, I hope that they will come back with proposals to ensure a great deal of unity throughout the regions for any proposal that they make.
We heard from hon. Members about the electoral system and the various methods of trying to create unity. My central point is that if one changes the relationship within the United Kingdom and ends up with a wholly Welsh assembly that deals with problems with a different agenda, the nature of the relationship within Wales will be changed.
I almost felt sorry for the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) when hon. Members started to talk about shifting jobs out of Cardiff to other areas of Wales, with hon. Members suggesting that perhaps the assembly should be in Swansea, or elsewhere. No doubt there will be fierce competition for the £7 billion of resources that the assembly will spend. There is no doubt that many people in Cardiff and the surrounding areas have jobs, living standards and mortgages based on the fact that they work for the Welsh Office, and the Welsh civil service. That will be a real issue for debate. Our proposal is to ensure the greatest consent throughout the regions—north, south, east and west.
I would not say that I am wholly uncritical of our proposals, because given that the new clause has been selected for debate, and the electoral regions were not selected by us, in different circumstances one could probably have done a better job of drafting a better proposal. I hope that the Government will take on board our concerns for the regions of Wales: the change in the relationship of the United Kingdom will change the dynamics of the debate in Wales. After all the debate and all the concerns that have been expressed, and with the great investment that the Government—indeed, the people of Wales—will make in the assembly, I hope that it will be a success, and that there will be a great deal of unity in setting out its objectives. None of us particularly wants to see it fail, although we opposed it in terms of the referendum. The key point is that it has to have consent throughout every region of Wales.

Mr. Letwin: I, too, speak in support of the new clause, but from a slightly different angle.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: A legalistic one.

Mr. Letwin: No, in contrast to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). I do not wish to dwell on what he would describe as a legalistic point.

Mr. Morgan: For the first time.

Mr. Letwin: This is not the first time.
I shall dwell on precedent and effect, because part of the duty of the Committee is to consider the effects not just on Wales, which have been much discussed, but on the United Kingdom as a whole. This is a major constitutional Bill, and the new clause is a major constitutional provision. Both the Bill and the new clause will affect how the rest of the constitutional development of the United Kingdom proceeds.
In particular, with entirely unified objections from Opposition Members, we are led to believe that there may come a time, alas, when Her Majesty's Government will introduce a subsequent Bill with a view to making the current hotch-potch arrangements of regional development agencies in England the basis of English regional government.

Mr. Syms: Shame.

Mr. Letwin: I echo entirely the comments of my hon. Friend. It would be a shame, to put it mildly.
Nevertheless we must recognise that the Government have a significant majority. Indeed, they spare no pains to remind us of that daily. Having introduced such a Bill, the Government, with or without referendums—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going wide of the new clause before us.

Mr. Letwin: I intend to return specifically to the effect that the new clause would have—

The First Deputy Chairman: It is not a question of when the hon. Member decides to return to it. I am telling him to return to it now.

Mr. Letwin: I shall do so immediately, Mr. Martin—forthwith.
If the new clause is not adopted, a precedent will be created in that there will be no protection for parts of the entirely arbitrary regions, which may be set up for England, from other parts of the same regions with the greatest voting power. That precedent would suggest precisely the need for such protection. Without straying from referring to the new clause, I shall use as an example my own region, the south-west, which some hon. Members present also represent. It is evident to us that in the absence of mechanisms similar to those which are suggested through new clause 21, there would be a grave danger—especially in the case of Bristol, which has a great weight of the votes within the south-western region—of certain areas becoming the overwhelming and dominant features of an arbitrary region. There are parallel cases throughout England in what are, perhaps in contrast to Wales, entities that have hardly any cultural homogeneity, hardly any real historical association and hardly any feeling of being conjoined except by arbitrary fiat of Her Majesty's Government and by a Bill produced in the House of Commons in an arbitrary and legalistic, if I may put it that way, fashion.
8 pm
There is a distinction between a country which has a real history and English regions which do not. The danger is—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We are not considering the Bill generally. Instead, we are dealing with a specific new clause. The hon. Gentleman must speak to the new clause, and he should know that.

Mr. Letwin: I accept your admonition, Mr. Martin. In one sense, I find it refreshing, having been accused throughout our consideration of the Bill in Committee of concentrating excessively on the precise words of each clause. In this instance, I am trying to relate my remarks to the new clause while illustrating what I think is an important precedent effect. If new clause 21 is accepted by the Government, or if any similar version is, the Government will be establishing a precedent that will provide protection of the sort that I have described for the English regions. That in itself would justify for many of my right hon. and hon. Friends the insertion of such a new clause.
Even if the Minister chooses not to take account of the new clause, and not to rephrase it in some way acceptable to himself and his colleagues, I would be extremely grateful if he were able at least to put on record that the Government accept the strength of feeling that would exist in a parallel case in English regions. I would be grateful also if the Minister would accept that where there are arbitrary collocations of particular places put under a single sub-national government, there is a need for protection of the sort suggested in the new clause.

Mr. Owen Paterson: New clause 21 is excellent, and I support it on the ground that it is clear this evening that not one Government Member has understood how delicate the opinions of many Welsh people are on the question of the assembly. It grieves them to be reminded, but they must be reminded yet again, that 75 per cent. of the Welsh people did not want the assembly. Labour Members have been grossly insensitive this evening towards those who do not want the assembly.

Mr. Öpik: I am generally sympathetic to the terms of the proposed new clause. However, is the hon. Gentleman not weakening his argument by using the tired old debating point about 75 per cent. yet again?

Mr. Paterson: If the hon. Gentleman allows me to develop my argument beyond the first four sentences, he might learn what I am about to say.
The referendum proved that Wales is not homogeneous politically, socially and economically.

Mr. Dafis: Is England homogeneous in the ways that the hon. Gentleman says Wales is not?

Mr. Paterson: Certainly not, but we are not putting forward such a measure for England. We believe in a sovereign Parliament for a United Kingdom, and not for one region.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will the hon. Gentleman not rethink the repetition of the tired old line that 75 per cent.

of the population of Wales did not want the assembly? His side lost the referendum campaign, and we on the other side won it. That is why the measure is before us. These are not just weasel words: I put it to the hon. Gentleman that they are a stoat's soundbites. Will he either rethink the tired old line or forget it? If he does not, his party, the Conservative party, will have no chance of ever reviving from the appalling position of zero Members in which it now finds itself.

Mr. Paterson: rose

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We must be careful. We must not return to the argument about the referendum. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that he wished to develop his argument. He has referred to the referendum, but we will not get bogged down by that. Instead, we shall deal with new clause 21.

Mr. Paterson: Thank you, Mr. Martin. I am delighted that hon. Members are so interested in my comments. I would like to progress beyond my fifth sentence.
I am delighted also that the great listener has resumed his place. I refer, of course, to the Secretary of State, who said:
I am conscious that we need to do a lot more work to bring Wales together. We must address genuine concerns and I acknowledge the fact that we must listen and continue to listen."—[Official Report, Welsh Grand Committee, 18 November 1997; c. 12.]
I revert to my argument. Wales is not homogeneous. There are major differences between those in south Wales round Cardiff, who believe strongly—[Interruption.] If hon. Members rise to make interventions, I may be able to respond to them.
South Wales has little in common with the rural areas that are represented, for example, by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). There is a Labour-dominated elite in south Wales. That economy looks to the east, to the M4. Montgomery and the hills of Powys and those of Denbighshire have little in common with south Wales. The areas of Wales that I know well are in the north-east, on the borders of Wrexham. There again, the borders are arbitrary. The nearest village to my house, Overton on Dee, was a bastide built by Edward I. It is very similar in design to the bastides that he was building in Aquitaine at about the same time.
Borders are arbitrary, but social and economic flows are not. Labour Members must recognise that there are real misgivings, especially in north-east Wales, about an assembly that may be in Cardiff or Swansea—much depends on how negotiations develop with the local estate agents. We do not know where the assembly will be, but it is almost certain that it will be built in south Wales.
As I have said, there is real unease. I beg the Secretary of State to take that on board. There is unease in the markets in north Wales as there is among investors, who are coming over the border from places such as Chester, Manchester and Liverpool. Those are the areas to which the economy of north-east Wales looks.
Socially, many of the people in north-east Wales have come from over the border and are all along the coast. There are those who have come from Merseyside. They have little in common with those who will dominate the assembly in south Wales, and they are nervous.
There is no transport system between north and south Wales. That is no one's fault, because there are mountains in the way. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire knows full well that the way to get through from north Wales to south Wales runs through my constituency and on to Shrewsbury. There are no links, and there is little in common. That was demonstrated graphically during the referendum.
New clause 21 would give the regions a chance. As proposed, the Bill contains no reference to a revising chamber. There is nothing to resist the diktat of the south Wales majority. [Interruption.] The two Ministers are laughing, but we could not have been faced with a more graphic example yesterday. There were nearly 300,000 people on the country march. They demonstrated that we cannot run a parliamentary democracy if the majority abuses its temporary power.
Ministers must take that on board. Majorities cannot use their power to trample on substantial minorities. The referendum showed that. I know from the people in north-east Wales, whom I speak to every week, that there are those in north Wales with real doubts about the whole project.
I turn briefly to new clause 24. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) told us that he wants to reduce traffic. I cannot understand how traffic will be reduced if parts of the administration of the assembly will be dispersed around Wales. We have the horrendous example of the European Parliament. I think that about 80 trucks go up and down between Brussels and Strasbourg once a month. We do not want to see that in Wales, if it is to remain a green and unpolluted land. I shall vote against new clause 24, and strongly support new clause 21.

Mr. Win Griffiths: We have had an entertaining and, at times, passionate debate on the new clauses. New clause 21 would place on the assembly procedural limitations in decision making on the vital interests of any region. Decisions could not be made without the support of at least a third of the Members of the Assembly from that region.
The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) specified five electoral regions: I shall not cavil at what regions he could justifiably use for this purpose. The assembly's Presiding Officer would determine when a region's vital interests were likely to be affected by a particular proposal. In reaching that conclusion, the Presiding Officer would have to have regard to the views of the regional Committee, which would be binding unless the Presiding Officer certified that they were without reasonable weight.
The assumption behind the new clause should not go unchallenged. My hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas), for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) and for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) considered the new clause typical of the Conservative party's cynical and patronising attitude to Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan saw it as hypocrisy: the Conservative party was opposed to devolution for Wales, but now seems to want devolution within Wales.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West said that the new clause was an attempt to balkanise Wales and to hobble the National Assembly for Wales. The Bill

provides for proportional representation, and, through the regional Committees, for the views of all parts of Wales and of all parties that gain reasonable support across the whole of Wales to be taken into account.
The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) may know that the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs has suggested that regions could be based on the four areas used by the Welsh Development Agency, or on those to be used by the new powerhouse. The national assembly advisory group has been considering seven regions, but there will be consultations, on the basis of which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will decide on the best way forward. The principal point is that advisory committees will be set up.
It takes unprecedented gall for Conservative Members to discuss the worries of people in Wales. Only the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) can claim to have regular contact with any part of Wales. We should remind ourselves that, of the 40 Welsh constituencies, 34 returned Labour Members of Parliament, in industrial and rural areas; four returned Plaid Cymru Members; two returned Liberal Democrat Members; and not one elected a Conservative Member of Parliament. Conservative Members should approach with humility the matter of what they know about what the Welsh people are thinking.
The Opposition assume that the assembly will in some way ride roughshod over the interests of particular regions of Wales in a malign conspiracy to promote one area over another. Labour Members represent 34 of the 40 Welsh constituencies, and are always in a majority in Wales.
We reject the nightmarish picture painted by the Conservative party. The National Assembly for Wales will work for the whole of Wales, not just for parts of it. The electoral system that we are providing will ensure that the voices of all parts of Wales will be heard in the assembly, and that the interests of the whole of Wales are taken fully into account. New clause 21 would place an artificial and bureaucratic constraint on the assembly in the proper discharge of its functions. We cannot accept it.
We have heard much about the referendum and yes-voting and no-voting areas. I remind the Opposition that the distribution of yes and no votes—the so-called green and red areas—is artificial, and does not sufficiently represent how the votes were cast. Nearly 40 per cent. of the yes votes were cast in areas that voted no. The 10,000 yes votes cast in Monmouthshire were as crucial to the majority as the yes votes cast in Carmarthenshire. Wales voted for the proposal in a national referendum. We can forget about the concept of yes and no votes: there was a substantial yes vote in the no areas.
8.15 pm
The new clause is inconsistent with the Opposition's championing of a cabinet system for the assembly, because it would hobble such a system and make it difficult to operate. The Opposition have suddenly come up with a regional system, which would hobble the National Assembly for Wales. Why on earth did they not think of it years ago, when they were considering the electoral make-up of the United Kingdom? They could have given Members of Parliament from Wales, Scotland and the standard planning regions of England a vote on proposals that had an impact on everybody—a far greater impact than a national assembly with its own powers will


have—and, if more than a third of them were opposed to a proposal, such as the poll tax, it could have been shelved or imposed only on those parts of England that voted for it. The story told by Conservative Members is ludicrous.
New clause 24 was spoken to by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) and supported by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey). The proposal for a National Assembly for Wales is aimed at bringing government closer to the people, and is at the heart of devolution. I look forward to the assembly making itself visible and accessible to all the people of Wales. However, the proposal in new clause 24 is not the best way forward.
Although the hon. Member for Ceredigion advocated devolution from Cardiff, it sounded like devolution to Aberystwyth. I shall put that matter aside for the moment, and point out that 25 per cent. of the executive quangos in Wales have headquarters outside Cardiff. There is also a substantial Welsh Office presence in a number of parts of Wales. We have no objection in principle to administrative devolution, but it is a matter that the assembly should consider. Significant extra costs would be built into the operation of the assembly in its early years if Parliament imposed an artificial timetable for devolution.
We must accept that the assembly may want to take up the theme of new clause 24, and will decide whether to undertake administrative devolution from Cardiff in its own time and in its own way. It is not, however, the job of this Parliament or this Bill to provide for such a set programme of administrative devolution. I hope that the hon. Member for Ceredigion will accept that.

Mr. Paterson: What reassurances can the Minister offer people in north-east Wales who have real doubts about the whole project? We have heard bluster from him, but so far we have heard no answers.

Mr. Griffiths: I realise that it is difficult for the hon. Gentleman to get to grips with the concept of the whole of Wales. Let me explain the point of our proposals. At present, no Conservatives represent north-east Wales, but under the additional member system, there is a chance that a few may do so. That will give an opportunity to some of the voice of north-east Wales that is not now heard in this Parliament to be heard in the national Assembly for Wales.
Similarly, the regional Committees will have an opportunity to give advice to the assembly. I have every confidence that the whole assembly will want to consider the views of its constituent parts. I realise that it is difficult for Conservatives to understand that any institution will listen to advice, because for 18 years they rejected advice consistently.
We will reject new clause 21 if the Opposition have the temerity to press it to a vote. As for new clause 24, I hope that it will not be pressed.

Mr. Evans: We always thought that this would be a significant debate. It has proved to be so, but it does not behove the Minister to talk about "listening", given that we have listened to what he just said about new clause 21.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), for Poole (Mr. Syms), for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve),

for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) and for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson). They proved one thing, at least: that they have listened to what the people of Wales have been saying.
New clause 21 is intended to allay the fear of people in the regions that they will be dominated by Cardiff and the south-east. If we look at the result of the referendum on 18 September—[Interruption.] I was waiting for the Secretary of State to start huffing and puffing. This is the one thing that he does not want: he does not want people to talk about the result of the referendum on 18 September. I understand why—it was an embarrassing result for the Secretary of State—but we will not allow history to be airbrushed in such a fashion.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that, if the swing of opinion between 1979 and the referendum had been the same as the swing between then and the general election, there would not have been a Conservative Member in the House.

Mr. Evans: That comes from the same school of thought that told us a moment ago that it was Monmouthshire that "won it for us". It is ridiculous to use statistics in such a way. The result in Monmouthshire was appalling—more than two to one against the measure.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Hon. Members must not dwell on the results in Monmouthshire, or in any county of Wales; they must debate new clause 21.

Mr. Evans: I went down that route, Mr. Martin, in response to the Minister, who presented a particular proposition.
New clause 21 refers to the regions. We must not ignore the fears of Wales, and we must not ignore the result of the referendum. We must take it on board. We must accept that there was a low turnout and that the result was split, and we must not kid ourselves, or con the Welsh people, that it was otherwise. At least on the morning of the result, the Prime Minister—instead of flying to Wales to pat the Secretary of State on the back and say how wonderful the result had been—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We must not go into the history of the referendum, which is past and done with. What is won is won, and what is lost is lost. We must deal with new clause 21.

Mr. Evans: New clause 21 is intended to address the fears of the people of Wales, who, in the regions, did not whole-heartedly support the proposals. The result proved that Wales was split down the middle. New clause 21 is aimed to deal with the result of the referendum. The Government—along with the Prime Minister—said that they would listen to the fears of the Welsh people, but they have not done so. It is the same sort of listening as their "listening" to the countryside. That is why 284,000 people marched on London yesterday.
The Government said that they would listen to the sensitivities of the people of Wales. What have they offered the people of Wales in the Bill? They have offered clause 62. I do not know whether Labour Members have read clause 62, but it could be called the sop clause.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not start quoting from clause 62. We are discussing new clause 21.

Mr. Evans: rose

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must listen to me, even if he listens to no one else in the Chamber. [Interruption.]

Mr. Evans: I will certainly ignore sedentary catcalls from the Secretary of State.
New clause 21 addresses the deficiencies of clause 62, which deals with regional Committees. Clause 62 provides for the establishment of a regional Committee in north Wales—[Interruption.] Will the Secretary of State listen for a moment? This is his Bill. The Government have decided to set up a Committee in north Wales, and other Committees in other regions of Wales. When the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) was talking about the Committees, we asked how many would be set up. He could not tell us, because he did not know. I suspect that he had not read the Bill properly. Clause 62 clearly states—

Mr. Win Griffiths: rose—

Mr. Evans: I have no time to give way. I have only four minutes left, and I am trying to follow the Chairman's guidance as far as possible.
The Government refer to north Wales and the other regions. In subsection (5), they state that the members of a regional Committee should be the Members representing regional constituency seats and also regional seats. We have taken the new clause from clause 62, to try to be helpful and to deal with the fears of people in the regions. [Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Those on the Government Front Bench must be quiet.

Mr. Evans: Thank you, Mr. Martin.
The fact is that clause 62 does not address the fears of people in the regions, for instance in north Wales, who feel that they will be dominated by a Cardiff-based, or Swansea-based—certainly a south Wales-based—assembly. We tabled new clause 21 to allay those fears.
The Secretary of State and the Minister have talked about being inclusive, and listening to what the people have said. If they want the will of the Welsh people to be settled, they will accept new clause 21. It will provide real presence and structure; it will address the fears of the regions in vital respects that affect parts of Wales outside Cardiff and the south-east. They will have a blocking vote that will give the whole structure some teeth. Our new clause is intended to be constructive rather than

destructive. We have tried to include the people of the regions outside Cardiff and the south-east. The new clause is straightforward, but if the Secretary of State is unhappy with it, he can prepare one of his own.
We want to listen to the people of Wales, but the Government have shown that they are not interested in anything other than spin, soundbites and cheesy smiles, and they are not enough to assuage the fears of people in the regions. That is why we will divide the Committee. We have listened to the people of Wales, and Labour has not. We shall speak up for all the Welsh people.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 144, Noes 271.

Division No. 186]
[8.29 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Grieve, Dominic


Amess, David
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Hancock, Mike


Arbuthnot, James
Harris, Dr Evan


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Harvey, Nick


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Hawkins, Nick


Baker, Norman
Hayes, John


Baldry, Tony
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Blunt, Crispin
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Brand, Dr Peter
Horam, John


Brazier, Julian
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Breed, Colin
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Hunter, Andrew


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Burnett, John
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Bums, Simon
Jenkin, Bernard


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Cash, William



Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Key, Robert



Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Chidgey, David
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Chope, Christopher
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Clappison, James
Letwin, Oliver


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lidington, David



Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Livsey, Richard


Collins, Tim
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Colvin, Michael
Loughton, Tim


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Luff, Peter


Cotter, Brian
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Cran, James
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Curry, Rt Hon David
Mclntosh, Miss Anne


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
MacKay, Andrew


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Day, Stephen
Malins, Humfrey


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Maples, John


Duncan, Alan
Mates, Michael


Duncan Smith, lain
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Evans, Nigel
May, Mrs Theresa


Faber, David
Moss, Malcolm


Fabricant, Michael
Öpik, Lembit


Fallon, Michael
Ottaway, Richard


Feam, Ronnie
Page, Richard


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Paterson, Owen


Foster, Don (Bath)
Pickles, Eric


Fraser, Christopher
Randall, John


Gale, Roger
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Garnier, Edward
Rendel, David


Gibb, Nick
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Gill, Christopher
Ruffley, David


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Gorrie, Donald
St Aubyn, Nick


Gray, James
Sanders, Adrian


Greenway, John
Sayeed, Jonathan






Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Tyrie, Andrew


Shepherd, Richard
Walter, Robert


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Wardle, Charles


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Waterson, Nigel


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Spicer, Sir Michael
Whittingdale, John


Spring, Richard
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wilkinson, John


Steen, Anthony
Willetts, David


Streeter, Gary
Willis, Phil


Stunell, Andrew
Wilshire, David


Swayne, Desmond
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)



Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Syms, Robert
Woodward, Shaun


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Townend, John



Tredinnick, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Trend, Michael
Mr. Oliver Heald and


Tyler, Paul
Sir David Madel.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Ainger, Nick
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Allen, Graham
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Dafis, Cynog


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Dalyell, Tam


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Ashton, Joe
Darvill, Keith


Atkins, Charlotte
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Austin, John
Davidson, Ian


Barron, Kevin
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Battle, John
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Bayley, Hugh
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Beard, Nigel
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Dawson, Hilton


Begg, Miss Anne
Dean, Mrs Janet


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Denham, John


Bennett, Andrew F
Dismore, Andrew


Benton, Joe
Dobbin, Jim


Bermingham, Gerald
Donohoe, Brian H


Betts, Clive
Doran, Frank


Blizzard, Bob
Dowd, Jim


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Drew, David


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Drown, Ms Julia


Bradshaw, Ben
Edwards, Huw


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Efford, Clive


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Buck, Ms Karen
Ennis, Jeff


Burden, Richard
Etherington, Bill


Burgon, Colin
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Butler, Mrs Christine
Fisher, Mark


Caborn, Richard
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Flint, Caroline


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Flynn, Paul


Caplin, Ivor
Follett, Barbara


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Chisholm, Malcolm
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Fyfe, Maria



Galbraith, Sam


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Galloway, George


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Gerrard, Neil


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Coaker, Vemon
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Coffey, Ms Ann
Godman, Norman A


Cohen, Harry
Godsiff, Roger


Colman, Tony
Golding, Mrs Llin


Connarty, Michael
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Cooper, Yvette
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Corbett, Robin
Grogan, John


Cousins, Jim
Gunnell, John


Cox, Tom
Hain, Peter





Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Morley, Elliot


Hanson, David
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Healey, John
Mudie, George


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Mullin, Chris


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Heppell, John
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hinchliffe, David
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hodge, Ms Margaret
O'Hara, Eddie


Hoey, Kate
Olner, Bill


Hoon, Geoffrey
Organ, Mrs Diana


Hope, Phil
Pearson, Ian


Hopkins, Kelvin
Pendry, Tom


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Perham, Ms Linda


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Pickthall, Colin


Howells, Dr Kim
Pike, Peter L


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Plaskitt, James


Hurst, Alan
Pollard, Kerry


Hutton, John
Pope, Greg


Illsley, Eric
Powell, Sir Raymond


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jenkins, Brian
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Primarolo, Dawn


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn HaWeld)
Prosser, Gwyn



Purchase, Ken


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Quinn, Lawrie



Rammell, Bill


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Rapson, Syd


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald



Keeble, Ms Sally
Rooker, Jeff


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Rooney, Terry


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kemp, Fraser
Ruane, Chris


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Sawford, Phil


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Sedgemore, Brian


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Sheerman, Barry


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Leslie, Christopher
Singh, Marsha


Levitt, Tom
Skinner, Dennis


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Linton, Martin
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Lock, David
Snape, Peter


Love, Andrew
Soley, Clive


McAllion, John
Southworth, Ms Helen


McAvoy, Thomas
Spellar, John


McCabe, Steve
Squire, Ms Rachel


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


McDonagh, Siobhain
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


McDonnell, John
Stinchcombe, Paul


McFall, John
Stott, Roger


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Stringer, Graham


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sutcliffe, Gerry


McLeish, Henry
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McNulty, Tony



MacShane, Denis
Taylor, David (NWLeics)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Mallaber, Judy
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Tipping, Paddy


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Touhig, Don


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Trickett, Jon


Martlew, Eric
Truswell, Paul


Meale, Alan
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Michael, Alun
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Milburn, Alan
Vis, Dr Rudi


Miller, Andrew
Walley, Ms Joan


Mitchell, Austin
Ward, Ms Claire


Moffatt, Laura
Wareing, Robert N


Moran, Ms Margaret
Watts, David






White, Brian
Wise, Audrey


Whitehead, Dr Alan
Wood, Mike


Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd
Worthington, Tony


Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Wray, James



Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Wyatt, Derek


Wilson, Brian
Tellers for the Noes:


Winnick, David
Mr. David Clelland and


Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Mr. David Jamieson.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 22

EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES (WELSH PUBLIC BODIES)

'—.(1) It shall be the duty of any body mentioned in Schedule 13 to make arrangements with a view of securing that its functions are carried out with due regard to the need to secure equality of opportunity.
(2) In this section, "equality of opportunity" means the prevention, elimination or regulation of discrimination between persons on grounds of sex or marital status, on racial grounds, or on grounds of disability or of other personal attributes, including belief or opinions, such as religious beliefs or political opinions.'.—[Ms Julie Morgan.]?

Brought up, and read the First time.

Ms Julie Morgan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 25—Gender neutral drafting—
'.—The National Assembly for Wales shall use gender neutral language in its publications and when framing subordinate legislation.'.
New clause 30—Equal opportunities (candidatures)—

—(1) The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 shall be amended as follows.
(2) After section 49 of the 1975 Act there shall be inserted—
"Candidatures for National Assembly for Wales
49A. Nothing in Parts II to IV shall render unlawful any act done by or on behalf of a registered political party within the meaning of the Government of Wales Act 1998 if it is an act done for the purpose of, or in connection with—

(a) selecting female candidates only, or male candidates only, for election to the National Assembly for Wales (`the Assembly'), or
(b) taking any steps preliminary to, or in connection with, such selection which either favour or subject to a detriment either female or male candidates,
provided that in the opinion of the party concerned the act in question is in the circumstances necessary to attempt to secure an equal number of members of the sex favoured as there are of the other sex as candidates of that party for election to the Assembly".'.

Ms Morgan: New clause 22 would impose the duty on public bodies of ensuring that their functions are performed with regard to equality of opportunity. It would apply to any of the public bodies mentioned in schedule 13 to the Bill—such as, for example, health authorities and trusts, the Welsh Development Agency and the Welsh Language Board. The membership of public bodies in Wales is very unrepresentative of the people of Wales, with women comprising less than a third of their membership. The new clause is therefore very necessary.
I should like to speak primarily to new clause 30, which would amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and allow political parties to introduce positive discrimination, to secure the selection of equal numbers of women and men candidates in elections to the assembly. I shall go into some detail on how the 1975 Act operates and on how new clause 30 would help to secure a more representative assembly.
The Sex Discrimination Act 1975. which is now 23 years old, was the first time that Parliament tried to legislate for equality between women and men. We have come a long way since the Act was passed, in our understanding of what we mean by equality and of how discrimination can arise. Discrimination often happens unintentionally, because little thought is given to the effect of actions on women and on men.
The 1975 Act differentiates between direct and indirect discrimination and states that, to claim discrimination in a tribunal, one must show a detriment. However, the Act provides only a few specific instances of detriment, such as in advertising. The Act makes it clear that its provisions apply to employment, education and access to publicly available goods, facilities and services, although it has been up to the courts to decide by case law what constitutes discrimination.
An individual alleging sex discrimination makes an application to a tribunal and argues her or his case, giving as much evidence as they can. Decisions are made individually. The Equal Opportunities Commission has made recommendations to establish a clearer and more comprehensive law, and has produced a document that is currently out for consultation. However, the law that currently applies is that which was passed in 1975.
The legal definition of discrimination has not been set in stone but has evolved by case law, both in United Kingdom and in European courts. It was not until 1986, for example, that sexual harassment was acknowledged as constituting sex discrimination. Even more recently. the courts have agreed that detrimental treatment of a woman because of pregnancy is sex discrimination. The law grows and evolves—reflecting society's views and sense of justice—in outlawing discrimination.
Until the Jepson case—which challenged all-women shortlists—it had been widely believed that the actions of political parties fell outside sex discrimination legislation. Section 33 of the 1975 Act specifically states that the Act shall not
be construed as affecting any special provision for persons of one sex only in the constitution, organisation or administration of the political party.
That means that we are legally able to have women's sections and women's seats on committees, which have been widely used by all political parties.
When Mr. Jepson began his case, in 1993, the Equal Opportunities Commission took an opinion, which confirmed its view that selection for parliamentary candidates did not constitute employment, and so did not fall within the scope of the 1975 Act, but was an internal matter for a political party. An industrial tribunal disagreed. However, that was only one tribunal; another might have reached a quite different conclusion. The case was not appealed, and therefore did not reach a higher court, where a precedent might have been set and the law clarified.
8.45 pm
The objectives of the European Community and of the United Nations are to achieve gender balance in decision making. The United Nations convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women was acceded to by the United Kingdom Government in 1986, and places special importance on women's participation in the public life of their country. Other conventions have reinforced the position of establishing a set framework of international standards of equality—including the Beijing declaration, and the platform for action arising from the United Nations conference on the status of women, which our Government agreed to implement.
Across the world, political debate now acknowledges that it is not enough simply to remove barriers to women's participation, but that we must take positive action and positive measures to get women involved. The concept of democracy that Labour is committed to renewing will have real meaning and lasting effects only when political decision making is shared by women and by men.
Article 4 of the UN convention encourages the use of temporary special measures to give effect to article 7, which spells out the right to participate in the formulation of Government policy, to hold public office and to participate in non-governmental, public and political organisations.
New clause 30, which would not only amend but clarify the 1975 Act, would allow British political parties to give effect to the principle stated in the UN convention, and would allow the UK to support and to take action in achieving the European Commission's fourth equal opportunities action programme—which has as one of its five objectives promoting a gender balance in decision making, and proposes that the Commission should develop a policy for promoting gender balance in decision making, by improving the quantity and quality of women's participation. The Commission plans to encourage and to support similar actions at the other decision-making levels—at both national and regional level—within member states.
The Labour party's proposals for Wales and for Scotland are absolutely in line with the EC and UN objectives. In Wales, women have been more dramatically under-represented in public and political life than in any other part of Britain. Wales has the lowest percentage of female councillors, and until May, only four women had ever represented Welsh constituencies. The three new women Members elected in May bring the grand total to four out of 40 and were selected from women-only shortlists. Positive action was required to ensure that more women were elected to represent Wales.
Labour has agreed to field equal numbers of women and men as candidates in the elections to the assembly and to the Scottish Parliament.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: I whole-heartedly agree with the aim of gender balance, but my hon. Friend knows from our discussions on achieving that aim that it raises difficult issues for constituency parties. What is the problem with 50:50 shortlists? That form of positive discrimination

could apply in the public sector as well as to political parties, although it would not guarantee gender balance. Will my hon. Friend explain why she rejects that idea?

Ms Morgan: I reject the idea of 50:50 shortlists because there is no guarantee that it will produce the required result. Obviously, it is a step in the right direction, but it would not guarantee 50:50 representation. I would accept that only as part of the solution.
We are working on procedures to achieve equal representation, but a worry remains that the law is unclear and any procedure adopted may be challenged. The new clause would not mean that there would be no legal challenge—nothing can guarantee that—but it would make clear the Government's intention that women should play a full and equal part in the national assembly and their commitment to allow political parties to take whatever steps they see fit to achieve that.

Sir Raymond Powell: Is my hon. Friend aware of my proposal that there should be 40 seats for women and 40 seats for men, totalling 80 seats in the assembly? Would not that solve the problem? It would do away with the need for proportional representation, as there would be an equal balance of male and female Members of the Assembly.

Ms Morgan: That would be a simple solution, and I welcome the proportionality that it would involve. However, we have to combine gender balance with the element of proportionality.
The new clause would enormously strengthen the position of any political party that needed to contest a legal challenge. We have to be aware that anti-equality organisations may mount such a challenge.
The new clause means that any case would have to hinge on European law. The Equal Opportunities Commission has taken further legal advice, which confirms the earlier advice that it received and argues that measures to ensure parity of female candidates are unlikely to contravene the equal treatment directives.
There have been a number of signs that European law will uphold special measures if they are consistent with United Kingdom law. First, the treaty of Amsterdam, which amends the treaty of Rome, makes it clear that positive action measures to redress the under-representation of women are lawful. Article 119 states that
the principle of equal treatment shall not prevent any Member State from maintaining or adopting measures providing for specific advantages in order to make it easier for the underrepresented sex to pursue vocational activity or to prevent or compensate for disadvantage in professional careers".
In the recent Marschall case, the European Court of Justice ruled that selection procedures that gave priority to female candidates when fewer women than men were employed was not unlawful discrimination, provided that there was an objective assessment of male as well as female candidates.
There is a great deal of evidence and legal opinion to suggest that a legal challenge to measures to field equal numbers of male and female candidates in elections to a new body such as the Welsh xassembly, in a country where women have been so dramatically excluded from political life, would not succeed.
The argument in favour of amending the Sex Discrimination Act is that that would strengthen the ability of political parties to defend themselves against a claim, by making clear the Government's intention and demonstrating that democracy comes first. The establishment of the Welsh assembly is a crucial part of the Government's strategy to revitalise and renew our democracy, and for it to work, we must ensure that 52 per cent. of the Welsh population who were previously excluded are there at the start. We cannot afford to waste time and energy defending cases through industrial tribunals, when we need to make absolutely categorical and indisputable our commitment to equality and inclusiveness, as part of the new democracy.
The new clause would enable the Government to defend themselves against any claim or action by any political party; it is essential that we ensure that 52 per cent. of the Welsh population have an opportunity to serve on the assembly.

Mr. Öpik: We support the new clause, for the simple reason that it is about time that we started taking equal opportunities seriously. It places a duty on
any body mentioned in Schedule 13",
such as a housing action trust, the National Museum of Wales, or the National Library of Wales, to ensure that there is equality of opportunity in the carrying out of its functions. It states that
'equality of opportunity' means the prevention, elimination or regulation of discrimination between persons on grounds of sex or marital status, on racial grounds or on grounds of disability — religious beliefs or political opinions.

Mr. Livsey: Does my hon. Friend agree that agism should be included in that list? As it is my hon. Friend's birthday today, on which I congratulate him, does he not think it an appropriate moment to introduce that point?

Mr. Öpik: I thank my hon. Friend for undermining my repeated youthful credentials. The world should know that this is the end of my first third of a century on the planet. At 33 today, I remember when I was younger, but I shall leave those reminiscences until another time.
My hon. Friend raises a serious point, however. There is a great deal of age discrimination, and perhaps the new clause would have been even better if it had included that.
The new clause also demands acceptance that the Welsh assembly would necessarily use gender-neutral language in its publications and when framing subordinate legislation. In effect, it is saying that the status quo is not an option when there is a choice between prejudice and equality.
The challenge of our political generation is to ensure that equal opportunities are enshrined in the etiquette and the legislation of our political institutions. The greatest strength of the new clauses is that they spell out the demand for equal opportunities in the Welsh assembly—a case that has already been made in legislation.

Mr. John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman has spoken a good deal about equal opportunities. The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) spoke a lot about equality of outcome.
Does he acknowledge that there is no guarantee that equality of opportunity will lead to equality of outcome? Where does he draw the line? Would he be prepared to go as far as the hon. Lady on what she described as positive action or affirmative action, or is he sitting on the fence, as Liberal Democrats are wont to do?

Mr. Öpik: I fully understand the Conservative crisis on the issue. I am flattered that the hon. Gentleman is asking the Liberal Democrats for guidance on what the moribund Conservatives should do to ensure equality of opportunity. My tuppenny-worth is that the important point for any political party—not just in Wales—is to set a strategy to dissolve the prejudices that so infest the political structures of the United Kingdom. To that extent, I agree with the desire of the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) for a system to redress the balance, which surely nobody in any party can think is reasonable or fair as we come to the turn of the millennium.
There are differences of view on how best to achieve our aim. The Labour party is proceeding in one direction. We settled our process at a conference at the weekend. I look forward to hearing what the Conservatives will do to ensure that they do not live in the ancient past, with ridiculous sexual inequality and an overbearing proportion of men in whatever seats they can win in the assembly. I hope that that answers the question of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes). I shall be happy to furnish him with a few more ideas on what the Conservatives might do, when he buys me my birthday drink in the Strangers Bar.

9 pm

Mr. Alan W. Williams: The Liberal Democrats are claiming the moral high ground on sorting out the gender balance. Of the 46 Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament, how many are women? What did the Liberal Democrats decide at their weekend conference?

Mr. Öpik: I do not want to digress too far from the matter in hand, but in the spirit of directness that I always seek to achieve in my interactions in the House, I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's questions as briefly and clearly as I can. He well knows that of our 46 Members of Parliament, only three are women. That is an unacceptable proportion. We have said that, and others have said it. We must set about modifying not just the proportion but the first-past-the-post system, which creates such an outcome. The hon. Gentleman knows that we believe that a single transferable vote system would redress the balance. The statistics on our candidates in the general election back that up.
The hon. Gentleman's second point is probably more relevant to the issue under discussion. The fundamental need is to engender an attitude of not tolerating discrimination in our systems. To summarise very briefly, the conference decided that we must proceed with equal shortlists and show to one and all attitudinally that we are not prepared to accept the prejudices—which come from the head and heart rather than constitutional documentation—that have infested our party and kept us from achieving the sexual equality that we all seek. I hope that that is sufficient explanation for the hon. Gentleman. I see him nodding, so I shall move on.
On a clean sheet, which the assembly is, we can draw any picture that we want of etiquette and prejudice. We can reproduce the same old tired weaknesses and paradigms that we see in this House, or we can decide that the past is not an option, refusing to tolerate the sexism, racism and agism that have pulled down the credibility of our political system. [Interruption.] Despite some of the incomprehensible shocked disappointment coming from the Conservatives on what is not just logic but a moral imperative, we should all agree on the issue.
The Government can give a little. Some people think that it is a sign of weakness to accept someone else's ideas. It is the same for the Government sometimes. The starting point for overcoming prejudice is recognising that the vulnerability of listening to and accepting another person's views can help us to modify positions that may prevent us from achieving equality. Just as men must acknowledge that a person's capability should be assessed regardless of gender, just as skin colour does not define personal abilities, so being in government does not entitle a person to believe that they have a monopoly on good ideas. Those who think otherwise feed the fallacious assumptions of superiority from some arbitrary distension. That and a fear of looking vulnerable are the seeds of discrimination. The Government genuinely could go some way to accepting the new clauses, rather than giving some reason in the summation why that is not on.
Whatever one's view about the selection processes adopted by various parties, what possible harm would it do Ministers or the Government's image to accept the basic request of, say, new clause 25, to ensure gender-neutral language in the assembly's publications? That would not cost a penny. I suggest that those who do not think that that is important ask themselves whether they are unaware of some prejudice in their outlook in the political environment, which makes them discount the importance of changing words to reflect the attitudes so clearly enunciated by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North.
I urge the Government to show commitment to equality in terms of words and deeds. It is a virtue to admit fallibility. In doing so, they will provide the precondition to sweeping away sexual prejudice. The best thing that the Government can do is to prove that they mean what they say. They have been resistant to accepting change in our deliberations so far. I urge them to accept this change, to show us that they take the issue seriously and to send a message, behind which I hope we can all unite, that sexual equality is the only option in the assembly. The assembly should be a model of good parliamentary practice for the rest of the United Kingdom. We have a golden opportunity to dissolve prejudice.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: As I look to the Benches behind me, I freely confess that the Conservative party is not unpreoccupied with matters of female representation in this place, or in the party. One of the key features of our party's renewal will be the involvement of more women in its front line.
The new clauses display a remarkable lack of confidence in the electors of Wales and how their elected representatives will deal fairly with such issues without the sanction of primary legislation. The Bill already requires the assembly to exercise its functions with due regard to equality of opportunity. The assembly will also have to publish a report each year, outlining what arrangements it has put in place to achieve that and how

effective they have been. I imagine that, by implication, that applies to the assembly's responsibilities. It is up to the assembly whether it wishes to lay down conditions for Welsh public bodies, as new clause 22 would require in primary legislation. New clause 22 would impose a duty on the bodies to make similar arrangements to the assembly for exercising their functions with due regard to equality of opportunity, but that surely should be a matter for the assembly and not be imposed by the Committee.
I shall brush over new clause 25 and move straight on to new clause 30. New clause 30 appears to be an interference in the relationship between the elector, the party and the elected. Whatever the internal arrangements of a party, it is not for legislation to lay down methods of selection. Nor should it legitimise forms of discrimination that would otherwise be illegal.
The way in which the argument about discrimination has progressed is extraordinary. Discrimination is outlawed in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the equal treatment directive and article 119 of the treaty on European Union. As that does not satisfy the political agenda of some of the participants, they want to make legislation more, not less, discriminatory.
When the Labour party tried to introduce women-only shortlists for parliamentary elections, that was found to be unlawful under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 in the case to which the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) referred. Labour did not appeal, leaving the legal position still somewhat unclear, but several leading lawyers argue that the parliamentary selection process would not be subject to the Act if it came before a court of law.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why he thinks that the new clause would lead to a more discriminatory outcome when the whole point is that, starting with a clean slate and a new assembly, the intended outcome should be equal and that neither sex should have a numerical advantage over the other?

Mr. Jenkin: The logic of the hon. Lady's position is to accept an earlier suggestion that we should simply legislate for 50 per cent. of the Members of the Assembly to be women. That is not a democratic outcome, because the voters of Wales should decide the membership of the assembly, and they should be free to vote for the candidates whom the parties choose to put up. There is a difference between discrimination in the process and discrimination in the outcome. We are against discrimination in the process, whereas the hon. Lady is in favour of discrimination in the process in order to achieve a particular outcome that satisfies her beliefs. That is not necessarily more democratic.
We all want more women to come into public life, to compete for jobs in public life and to do well, but it does not do women a favour to promote women who are necessarily less well qualified than men. [Interruption.] Women are not inferior to men; women can do just as well as men and often do far better, as we in the Conservative party have discovered from time to time. The problem is that the new clause would legitimise discrimination, and that flies in the face of the very rights that the hon. Member for Cardiff, North is trying to create.
I refer the Committee attention to article 14 of the European convention on human rights, which the Government are incorporating into United Kingdom law. It states:
The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.
That is the true language of rights. The language of the new clause is the language of a political agenda that has more to do with restricting rights in favour of certain groups than with promoting genuine equality. That is why we oppose the new clause, although I congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff, North on her tenacity and on her honesty in telling the House that she herself is here by virtue of such a discriminatory process.

Mr. Win Griffiths: The business of the Committee has meant that the debate has not been as long as we might have wanted it to be and my remarks will necessarily be brief.
New clause 22 arises out of a use of schedule 5 to the Scotland Bill and, unfortunately, the way in which that has been transposed into the Government of Wales Bill does not meet the same requirements that exist in the Scotland Bill. It would extend rights in respect of religious and political beliefs, but we have no statute law on those matters and they are therefore specifically excluded in the Scotland Bill, even though they are referred to in the interpretation of equal opportunities. Because of the pressure of time, I shall write in detail to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan), who stated her arguments clearly, and place a copy of the letter in the Library.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) spoke to new clause 25. We believe that the Bill already provides in clauses 47 and 113 for the assembly's business and the exercise of its functions to be pursued having regard to the principle of equality of opportunity. We also believe that the use of gender-neutral language is only one element in this. The national assembly advisory group is already considering equality of opportunity in the context of clause 47, and I shall ensure that its attention is drawn to the concerns that the hon. Gentleman raises.
On new clause 30, the Government attach great importance to much more extensive participation by women in the political process. I take it that that is the feeling of the whole Committee, despite some rather negative remarks. For far too long, there have been far too few women in our elected chambers. That is particularly true of Wales, where, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North said, women have been scandalously under-represented in political life. In 80 years, only seven women Members of Parliament have represented Welsh constituencies, four of whom are current Members. However, I am pleased that two of the five representatives of Welsh constituencies in the European Parliament are women—that is something on which to build.

Mr. Dafis: I want to make it clear that Plaid Cymru Members strongly support the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan). May I draw to the Minister's attention the fact that the Women's Institute in Wales suggested that the Equal Opportunities Commission should be included in the list of organisations in schedule 4, to establish a relationship between the assembly and the commission and so encourage the integration of gender balance into the work of the assembly?

Mr. Griffiths: Speaking off the cuff, I do not think that there would be any problem with that—we shall consider it.
The Government hope that representation in the National Assembly for Wales will, from the outset, be different from what we have had at Westminster. The assembly will be a new start for Wales, and we hope that women will be to the fore in ensuring that that new start is a success.

Sir Raymond Powell: What are the Government's proposals to ensure a gender balance? How will they ensure that women are elected to the Welsh assembly?

Mr. Griffiths: If I may continue with my speech, I hope that some of the issues will emerge as I proceed.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Three minutes.

Mr. Griffiths: Well, I shall have to proceed very quickly.
The Government are committed to the principle of equality. We want the assembly to be inclusive and equally accessible to all groups in Wales. New clause 30 would amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 to remove from its scope the selection procedure for assembly candidates. That is a complex issue. The requirements of European employment law, particularly the equal treatment directive, and the Sex Discrimination Act have established the framework in which we work.
The parties can take a range of steps to encourage more women to put themselves forward as candidates. They need to make a strong statement nationally of their commitment to encourage women to come forward as candidates for selection—I have no hesitation in giving that commitment on behalf of the Wales Labour party.
Parties should offer more training for women who are interested in putting themselves forward as candidates. There should be training for local selection committees, and promotional literature to encourage women party members to stand for selection. The Equal Opportunities Commission has offered political parties advice on how to put into practice equal opportunities in their selection procedures, and I urge all parties to take up that offer.
We are also aware that the procedures and working practices of a legislature may in themselves be an active disincentive to women who might otherwise be interested in standing for election. With that in mind, clause 47 requires the assembly to make appropriate arrangements to ensure that its business is conducted with due regard to the principle that there should be equal opportunities for all.
Clause 113 also requires the assembly to make arrangements to ensure that it has regard to the principle of equality in the exercise of its functions. The White Paper made it clear that we are committed to equal opportunities for all. That commitment extends to women and men, members of the ethnic minority communities, the disabled and others. We urge all political parties to have regard to the principle of equal opportunities in drawing up their procedures for the selection of candidates for the assembly elections.
I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North to withdraw the motion.

Ms Julie Morgan: In view of those remarks, and in the hope that the Government will examine the issues again during the passage of the Scotland Bill and consider whether free-standing legislation should be introduced, I reluctantly beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Wigley: On a point of order, Mr. Lord. In view of the way in which the guillotine is preventing debate on matters such as the consumer affairs committee, can we have some assurance that those matters will be given some consideration on Report?

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): That is not a matter for the Chair at this point. I am sure that the Committee is well aware of the times laid down for debates this evening.

Mr. Livsey: Further to that point of order, Mr. Lord. May I make the same point about the Consolidated Fund, which is especially important?

The Second Deputy Chairman: I have dealt with that point of order. I remind the Committee that points of order simply take more time out of tonight's debate.

Mr. Ron Davies: Further to that point of order, Mr. Lord. Let it nevertheless be on the record that the timetable motion with which we are complying was agreed by all parties, and that the whole House has responsibility for the passage of the legislation.

The Second Deputy Chairman: I think that I have dealt with that point of order.

New clause 31

TREASURY CONSENT (LOCAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE AND COUNCIL TAX)

'(1) The Assembly shall not directly or indirectly do anything, or omit to do anything, which would have, or may have, the effect of increasing local government expenditure in Wales or the effect of increasing the rate of council tax in Wales without the consent of the Treasury.

(2) Such consent of the Treasury may be given from time to time and may be revoked or qualified at any time or times.'.— [Mr. Jenkin.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Jenkin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
In an effort to ensure that everyone gets a chance to speak, I shall be as brief as possible. It was interesting to note in the previous debate that the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), spoke for longer than the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan), who moved the original motion.
Paragraph 3.8 of the White Paper made it clear that the assembly would assume responsibility for funding Welsh local authorities, and that was to be put into effect by clause 22 and schedule 2 which, taken together, require the Secretary of State to transfer functions relating to local government in Wales.
The amount of revenue support grant awarded to a council is not specified in law and will be totally at the assembly's discretion. Furthermore, the Government are committed, as paragraph 3.9 of the White Paper says, to removing "crude and universal capping". Indeed, the Secretary of State said:
Certainly I want to get away from the capping regime. I think that it is unhealthy … as a Government we are opposed to the crude and universal system of capping, introduced by the last Government, which we have inherited."—[Official Report, 11 February 1998; Vol. 305, c. 385–87.]
As we have consistently said, the assembly could introduce its own tax-raising power through the back door, by deliberately holding back funds from the unitary authorities, safe in the knowledge that they would then raise council tax. The new clause would stop the assembly forcing local authorities to raise their council tax without Treasury approval.
We have consistently warned that the assembly will effectively possess an indirect tax-raising power. The new clause is designed to prevent that.

Mr. Win Griffiths: The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) displays entirely unnecessary caution and fear, as I hope to be able to show. It must be realised that funding for local government—the hon. Gentleman specifically referred to that point—represents nearly half of the total Welsh block. New clause 31 would fundamentally affect the way in which the assembly would discharge its responsibilities for funding local government in Wales.
We must be clear about the effect of the new clause. It would provide for a Government Department in Whitehall to second-guess decisions of an elected assembly based in Wales. The assembly will be directly accountable to the people of Wales for its decisions, but that is not to say that, under devolution, the United Kingdom Government will have no interest in the level of local government expenditure in Wales. The block principles that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary published before Christmas made it clear that financial arrangements would be made to safeguard the United Kingdom taxpayer from the effects of decisions taken by the assembly. That is why, for example, the cost of council tax benefit in Wales is to be brought within the block. The assembly will not be able to pass on the benefit costs of its decisions to the Department of Social Security.
We have also recognised that, at the moment, local authority self-financed expenditure, including council tax income, forms part of the Government's control total. Council tax levels are controlled by capping. As the hon. Member for North Essex rightly pointed out, the


Government are committed to abolishing crude, universal capping, but we are reviewing the capping powers as part of our review of local government finance. Consultation on those issues will be carried out later this year in England and Wales. We shall decide, in the light of the review, what powers the assembly should have. The block principles cater for that.
If local authority self-financed expenditure in Wales grows more rapidly than the equivalent expenditure in England and in such a way as to threaten targets set for public expenditure as part of the management of the UK economy, it will be open to the Government to take the excess into account when considering the level of the Welsh block. That safety provision is written in. Therefore, appropriate safeguards will be put in place to protect the UK taxpayer. The Government's view is that those safeguards are best delivered through the flexible administrative arrangements in the block rules, instead of the straitjacket that would be introduced by new clause 31.
Under the new clause, a decision to give £1,000 more to local government would require the assembly to go, cap in hand, to the Treasury for permission. That cannot be an appropriate way to treat a mature, elected body. I hope that the hon. Member for North Essex will accept that protection for the UK taxpayer is provided in the block principles that we have already set out. A serious side effect of the new clause would be to make it impossible for the assembly to make even small changes in the provision for local government in Wales. Therefore,
I hope that he will withdraw the motion.

Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. He gave the answer that I expected. Will it be less inflammatory for the future relations between the Treasury and the assembly for a behind-the-scenes, arm-twisting policy to be the way in which the Treasury controls the withdrawal of grant from local authorities, instead of clear and unequivocal consents being required by the Bill? I ask that question as a warning. We believe that misunderstandings on that issue are likely to lead to friction between the Westminster Parliament and the Welsh assembly in the future.

Mr. Win Griffiths: There is nothing behindclosed-doors about this. I have explained clearly how the principle will work, and it is open for everyone to see.

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman may say that, but there will be private discussions between representatives of the Welsh assembly and the Treasury, behind closed doors, where the issue of how much revenue support grant settlement is doled out to local authorities will have to be agreed, so that the assembly should know that what it is agreeing will not result in a withdrawal of grant by the Treasury.
That is the use of Executive power, instead of the use of simple expedients in the Bill, to try to control local authority spending. I can appreciate why, sitting in his position, the Minister would prefer everything to be done at the discretion of Ministers, but that approach carries with it dangers. The dangers are that, when the arm twisting becomes serious, the assembly will feel that its legitimate rights are being thwarted because no restriction that would otherwise contain its action has been put in the Bill.
To achieve what we should prefer to achieve by legislation, the Minister will have to rely on back-room pressure, and back-room pressure is less satisfactory than an open agreement set down in the Bill. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 32

ASSEMBLY TO BE SUBJECT TO INVESTIGATION BY PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER

'In Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 at the appropriate place insert:—
The National Assembly for Wales".'.—[Mr. Jenkin.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Jenkin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 33—Assembly to be subject to investigation by Commission for Local Administration—
'In section 25(1) of the Local Government Act 1974 at the end insert:
(e) the National Assembly for Wales".'.

New clause 41—Ombudsman for Wales—

'.—(1)The Assembly shall make provision for the investigation of relevant complaints made to its members in respect of any action taken by or on behalf of a member of the executive committee in the exercise of functions conferred on the members of the executive committee.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (I), a complaint is a relevant complaint if it is a complaint of a kind which could be investigated under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 if it were made to a member of the House of Commons in respect of a Government department or other authority to which that Act applies.

(3) In making provision of the kind required by subsection (1), the Assembly shall have regard to (among other things) the Act of 1967.

(4) The provision required by subsection (1) shall include the appointment by the Assembly of a National Assembly for Wales Commissioner for Administration.

(5) In this section, "action" includes failure to act (and related expressions shall be read accordingly); and the references to the Act of 1967 are to that Act as it has effect on the commencement of this section.'.

Mr. Jenkin: I shall be very brief because I should be grateful to the Minister for an answer.
There is no provision in the Bill for an ombudsman to investigate complaints of maladministration by the assembly or those bodies for which it has responsibility. We could give many examples of where an ombudsman would be an appropriate port of last call for members of the public with grievances. The House has an ombudsman; local government has an ombudsman. Is there an ombudsman to whom people could apply in this case?

Mr. Wigley: I wish to speak to new clause 41, which proposes an ombudsman for Wales, making slightly different provision from that suggested by the Conservative new clauses 32 and 33, which give that responsibility either to the parliamentary ombudsman or


to the local government ombudsman. Our new clause provides the facility for a specific ombudsman for the National Assembly for Wales. Whichever course is chosen, it is essential that there is recourse to an ombudsman.

Mr. Livsey: Liberal Democrat Members agree with what the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) has just said, but if what he proposes is not possible, we propose that the assembly be subject to investigation by the parliamentary commissioner. We do not believe that investigation by the commissioner for local administration in Wales, as is suggested in new clause 33, is appropriate.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I was fully prepared to take short speeches from all the Opposition parties because we believe—as we have shown in our actions—that an important part of the process of passing the Bill is to listen to what people have to say.
The House may recall that, in the White Paper, we said that we would wish to extend the jurisdiction of the parliamentary commissioner to cover the work of the assembly. However, after considering the matter, and at the suggestion of the parliamentary commissioner, Michael Buckley, we felt that it would be better to create a separate office of the assembly ombudsman. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State informed the House of that on Second Reading.
It is our intention to create a new office of the assembly ombudsman. We would expect constituents to bring their appeals to the ombudsman through their Member of the Assembly, as constituents bring appeals to the parliamentary commissioner through their Member of Parliament. It would be up to the assembly to decide whether it wanted its own free-standing ombudsman or whether it would place itself at the disposal of the parliamentary ombudsman. However, we shall table an amendment, and when we do so there will be an opportunity to discuss the detail. Therefore, I hope that the motion will be withdrawn.

Mr. Jenkin: It has been drawn to my attention that, in view of our previous debates, it might be more appropriate to call the person an ombudsperson rather than an ombudsman, because I believe that we want gender-neutral language in the Welsh assembly. That rather underlines the pointlessness of the exercise. I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 35

CANDIDATURES

'(1) No party may submit a list of candidates to be Assembly members for an Assembly electoral region unless there is a candidate of that party in at least one—half of the Assembly constituencies included in that Assembly electoral region.
(2) Where a party has candidates in at least one half of the Assembly constituencies included in an Assembly electoral region they shall submit a list of candidates to be Assembly members for that Assembly electoral region.'.—[Mr. Ancram]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is a somewhat unusual new clause that deals with an important point. As I have only a short time to deploy the argument, I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I do not take interventions. I hope that the Government will be able to respond.
To understand the argument, it is necessary to revisit the proposed system of elections to the assembly, which we discussed earlier in Committee—the two-vote additional member system known as AMS, with the distribution of list seats contingent on the outcome of the constituency contests in the individual constituencies in each region.
For various reasons, largely in relation to the Scotland Bill, it has become clear that the AMS as at present provided could be open to legal but undesirable manipulation, which would effectively go far towards negating the purpose of achieving a more proportional result.
As hon. Members will recall, I made clear my dislike of the AMS at an earlier stage. I want to make it clear at the outset that the new clause does not seek to wreck the proposed system. In reluctantly accepting the system, I am trying to mitigate the effects of the damaging manipulation which, it appears, could currently arise and which, without some adjustment to the Bill, is quite likely to arise.
The potential for manipulation arises from what could loosely be called ticket splitting. In a region where one party is likely to score heavily on the first-past-the-post constituency contests, the AMS by way of the d'Hondt divisor, which is the one built into the Bill, applied under clause 6(1)(b), would on straight party tickets militate strongly against that party on the electoral region lists. Indeed, the required proportionality is achieved through the so-called adjustment seats, which is the purpose of the d'Hondt system that the Government have adopted and by which they set great store, as they have told us repeatedly.
The potential, however, arises for the party in question to decide not to contest the list seats at all, but instead to throw its weight behind another party in order to deny other parties additional members through the adjustment seats. This other party could be, as is happening increasingly in Germany, a potential coalition partner that would then owe loyalty in return for the benefit of the split ticket. Although that is undesirable and undermines proportionality, I fear that that is probably unavoidable within the system.
The most unacceptable manipulation can occur in a slightly different way. The dominant party in terms of the constituency elections could decide not to contest the list seats, and could instead form an understanding with another party, probably one that might be termed an alter ego party, which had been registered for that purpose—a party that either had not stood in the constituency seats, or had received no votes there.

Mr. Ron Davies: Or presumably that could be done with independent candidates.

Mr. Ancram: Indeed, but the mathematics become more fierce when they involve a registered party on the list system. The alter ego party could stand in the regional lists, and if there was an effective straight replication of votes across from the constituency to the regional lists, the effect would be dramatic in the overall increase of


seats that those combined parties could achieve. The alter ego party would avoid the constituency strike-rate element of the divisor, and would be subjected to the divisor only under the list system itself.
A party could stand, for example, as Plaid Cymru in the constituencies and register its alter ego as the Party of Wales for the regional list. Conservatives could become Unionists for the same purpose. Labour could become Co-operative, as has been mooted in the west of Scotland, or resurrect the Independent Labour party.

Mr. Wigley: Or become socialist.

Mr. Ancram: Or even become socialist. Liberal Democrats, as we know, would probably become whatever suited them at the time.
It all sounds complicated, but in essence it is not. A split-ticket campaign would not be difficult where the split between the two parts of the system was total. If, however, there is any cross-over, split-ticket voting is by no means impossible, but it becomes much harder to manage. I shall return to that.
I shall try to exemplify. I am sorry that I have not been able to produce any figures for Wales, but some work has been done in Scotland. I refer with appreciation to the initial work of Dr. Michael Dyer of the department of politics and international relations at Aberdeen university. On the basis of the electoral results of I May last year applied equally to both ballots within the AMS in Scotland, it is calculated that Labour would have returned 64 out of 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament—which is only one short of an overall majority. However, if there had been a clear split-ticket arrangement in place using an alter ego party, the combined total would have been 91—a clear majority and an increase from just under 50 per cent. to just over 70 per cent. of the seats. While that might be attractive in political terms, it would comprehensively defeat the purpose of the AMS system: proportionality would be side-stepped and the basis of the new political arrangements would be undermined. On that basis, I hope that the Secretary of State will share my concern about that problem.
That brings me to the solution. Clearly the key will be the provisions for the registration of parties. The worst of the effects that I have mentioned would be avoided if there were provisions to prevent the registration of what I have termed alter ego parties. However, at present, we do not know what the provisions will be. It is quite extraordinary, if not unacceptable, that we have reached this stage in considering the legislation—alongside the Scotland Bill and the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, which are also affected—without sight of the terms of the enactment referred to in clause 4(8) and having achieved nothing more than the earliest stages of inter-party consultation about what they might be.
So central is the question of registration to the proper working of the electoral system that it is unconscionable that the legislation could complete its passage through this place without full sight of, and discussion about, the statutory criteria by which registration will operate and clear indications that alter ego parties will not be permitted. I make that point very seriously at this stage in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take steps to

ensure that, when we return to the Bill on Report on the Floor of the House in due course, we shall be fully apprised of the details of the forthcoming legislation regarding registration. It cannot be right that important democratic systems are created in legislation with a vital component such as this left unrevealed. We need to see the registration Bill—and soon.
In the meantime, our new clause—which does not and cannot deal with registration—seeks to mitigate the worst effects of such manipulation. It seeks to prevent the optimum split-ticket arrangement where the split between the two parts of the system is total. It is in two connected parts: the first requires a party to put up candidates in one half of the constituencies in an electoral region if it wants to nominate a list; and the second requires a party to nominate a list if it has candidates in one half of the constituencies in an electoral region. I must admit that that does not resolve the problem, but it makes the potential abuse more difficult to achieve. It is certainly better than nothing—which I fear is what the Bill at present provides.
I hope that this suggestion will appeal to anyone who genuinely wants a fair and balanced system of elections to the assembly—and I hope that that includes the Government Front Bench. In any event, I commend new clause 35 to the House.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I thank the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) for advancing new clause 35 and the reasoning behind it. We acknowledge the points that he has made and I concede that there may be scope for collusion between and within parties to exploit the two-ballot structure of the additional member system in the manner that he described. Such cynical manipulation of the system would be an affront to the electorate and would undermine the democratic credibility of the elected body.
However, it is not easy to deal with this problem as a matter of law—the proposed new clause would have some undesirable consequences, as I shall explain in a moment. I am not aware that there is any provision in existing electoral law that would provide the answer. A rather similar circumstance prevails in certain parts of Wales that has a different effect. Known members of political parties often stand in local government elections as independents, even though they are nothing of the kind. They do not wear their political colours because they fear that that might reduce their chances of election. Nothing in the law prevents that practice, and it is left to the good sense of electors to figure out who is who.
One of the unfortunate side effects of the new clause is that it could—without going into all the details—have a severe effect on many of the smaller parties in the electoral regions. It would sometimes be difficult for them to offer a sufficiently large number of candidates for the list. The new clause could damage the interests of smaller parties. We want to be inclusive in the assembly. We want to try to take account of the fears of people throughout Wales. That is why we are a bit hesitant.
9.45 pm
I return to the issue of collusion. The collusion mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman will require the vigilance of other political parties and the media to expose it. There is evidence to show that, in New Zealand and


Germany, where efforts have been made to use collusion, it has been exposed and it has not done the parties involved any good. If that were to happen in Wales, it would not reflect well on the guilty parties. That would be a real deterrent. That said, we take on board the serious concerns the right hon. Gentleman has raised.
I am not in a position to give a guarantee about when the details on registration will emerge. I can assure Opposition Members that we want to see whether it will deal with these issues. I am not entirely sure that it will. We do not want to dismiss the matter as of no importance. We shall examine it with our colleagues in Scotland and the Home Office to try to prevent collusion in the additional member system in Wales.
I hope that, with those assurances, the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to withdraw the motion.

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the Minister for the concern that he has shown towards the new clause and, indeed, for the way in which he responded to it. He, like me, realises that whatever our views on a particular electoral system, it is important that it is seen to work fairly if it is not to undermine the democratic institution at which it is directed.
I am worried not just about collusion, which might be regarded as underhand and when exposed cause a public reaction, but about the open manipulation of the system, as happens in certain parallel systems where having an alter ego party is a purely political manoeuvre to allow the d'Hondt divisor to be avoided in the second list, which means that in the first calculation no account is taken of the constituencies that are won on the direct list. The system can be abused not just in an underhand way but in a legitimate and legal way, which would avoid the intentions behind the system. I hope that that can be looked at.
I am a little cautious about using Germany as a parallel. The areas there are much bigger and there is not the tendency, except in a few areas, towards a preponderance of one-party votes that could create the problems in an area such as this.
Finally, I return to the registration of political parties. Important issues arise and I stress that I shall be making the same point in relation to the Scotland Bill. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), the shadow Home Secretary, made the same point when the House of Commons was discussing the European Parliamentary Elections Bill last Thursday. If we are to have confidence in going along with what is proposed, we must know the criterion on which legislation is to be based. I understand that consultation has begun, but it is at an early stage and fairly vague.
As for the propensity for alter ego parties to get through the system, I should be grateful for detailed information, if that is possible, on Report. Indeed, it would be difficult for us to take a sanguine attitude to these matters if that information was not available. I realise that that is not entirely in the hands of the Minister or the Secretary of State, but is a matter for the Home Secretary. However, I hope that my views and representations will be made known strongly and clearly.
In the light of what the Minister has said, and given his undertaking to take the new clause away and consider it carefully, I am prepared to withdraw the new clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 36

RIGHTS OF MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS REPRESENTING PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES IN WALES

'(1) Members of the House of Commons representing a constituency in Wales shall be entitled to attend and participate in any proceedings of the Assembly.

(2) Subsection (1) does not confer on any such Member of the House of Commons—

(a) any right to vote, or
(b) any right to attend or participate in the proceedings of a committee of the Assembly or any sub—committee of such a committee.

(3) The standing orders must include provision for any documents which—

(a) contain material relating to any business which has been, or is to be, transacted by the Assembly itself, and
(b) are made available to all Assembly members,
to be available to such Members of the House of Commons no later than the time when they are made available to Assembly members who are not members of the executive committee.'.—[Mr. Jenkin.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Jenkin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Under clause 75, the Secretary of State for Wales is entitled to attend and participate in any proceedings of the assembly, although that right would neither give the Secretary of State a vote nor would it extend to Committees. The Secretary of State would also receive any relevant documents at the same time as Members of the Assembly. The new clause would give Members representing Welsh constituencies similar privileges. We think that that is only right as they have responsibilities for representing the electors of Wales as much as Members of the Assembly.

Mr. Syms: I support my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). One of the key points will be how the relationship between the House of Commons and the Welsh assembly develops. The new clause provides a mechanism whereby Members of this place may at least be able to attend, talk and participate but not vote in the assembly's deliberations. That would be useful for an understanding of the perspective from the point of view of us in the United Kingdom Parliament and of Members of Parliament, of what is happening and of the issues that are current within the assembly.
Almost of more importance is the last part of the new clause, which provides that documents should
be available to such Members of the House of Commons no later than the time when they are made available to Assembly members who are not members of the executive committee.
It is important that if decisions are made in the assembly that have an impact on parliamentary constituencies, Members who represent those constituencies should at least have the full information available to them relatively quickly so that when they are dealing with correspondence or local problems they are aware of the


advice that was given to assembly Members by their officers and aware also of the information that has been available to those who have taken decisions.

Mr. Gareth Thomas: I oppose the new clause because it would confuse the roles of elected representatives of the assembly and elected representatives at Westminster. They should work in partnership, but to allow representatives from Westminster to attend the assembly, even if they do not have the right to vote in debates at the assembly, would create confusion and would undermine the principle of accountability. It would also eat into debating time within the assembly.
I shall be interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say in reply. I am sure that I am not the only Member of this place who, while supportive of the principle of devolution and congratulatory of the Government on their valiant efforts to produce workable legislation, wants to hear what my hon. Friend has to say about how he and the Government generally intend to foster a workable relationship between Members of Parliament in Westminster and elected Members of the Assembly. Given the devolved nature of powers, that is particularly significant, and it will be interesting to see whether the Government start a debate about how that partnership should be engendered. That important point exercises the minds of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.
There would have to be a partnership. It is not beyond the wit of man or woman to realise that assembly Members and Westminster Members of Parliament must respect each other's functions. Westminster will retain primary legislative power, and Welsh Members of Parliament will continue to play an important part in the legislative process.
I oppose the new clause because, although it raises an issue that should be addressed, it confuses the roles of the representatives at Westminster and in the assembly.

Mr. Livsey: Liberal Democrat Members believe that the new clause would subordinate the Welsh assembly to the views of Westminster Members of Parliament, which is not the correct way to proceed. Westminster Members should have the right to observe the assembly's proceedings and to receive documentation on its workings. Beyond that, a line should be drawn.

Mr. Grieve: The hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) made interesting points, but I shall explain why the anxieties that he expressed do not add up.
The assembly will regulate its own proceedings. I should be surprised if Westminster Members who wanted to attend were given priority over Members of the Assembly to participate in debates, but the new clause addresses the anxieties that the hon. Member for Clwyd, West rightly expressed. There must be a good working relationship between Members of Parliament representing Welsh constituencies and the assembly if the assembly is to do its work successfully.
The assembly will deal with secondary legislation—we shall consider statutory instruments later in the debate—and good channels of communication with those who represent Welsh interests when primary legislation is

considered at Westminster are essential. There will be the danger of a breakdown in communications if Westminster Members of Parliament are not invited to attend the assembly's debates. Members of Parliament will not want to attend as observers unless their views can be heard.
The new clause is designed to deal with precisely that point, and would not subordinate the assembly to the will of Members of Parliament. The reverse is true: the assembly will have the power to regulate its own proceedings under the Bill, and the new clause would allow Members of Parliament to be fully briefed on assembly issues. For that reason, I support the new clause.

Mr. Letwin: I see the new clause as a cry for help. We have frequently examined the tissue of the conflicts to which the Bill gives rise, and the Secretary of State and his colleagues on the Treasury Bench have assured us on numerous occasions that our fears will be resolved by a new spirit of amity and co-operation. Those Ministers have often told us that our fears are based on a reactionary view of the likelihood of constitutional conflict. They have said—the Secretary of State is nodding helpfully—that, if only we understood the new spirit in which the House of Commons, the other place and the Welsh assembly would proceed, we would realise that our fears were groundless.
10 pm
If that is true, it falls to the Secretary of State and his Ministers to tell us how, mechanically, such an entirely new constitutional spirit will arise. Close to me sit the highly articulate and noble representatives of a political party represented—at the moment—by the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). Unlike the Government, they have an entirely clear view of what the assembly is, where it is headed and what is to be made of it. They have taken great heart from the Secretary of State's observation on repeated occasions—I think I quote him exactly—that this is a process rather than a resting point. As they see it, the process is not one to which new clause 36 would give rise, nor is it in a spirit of amity and co-operation. On the contrary, like many parts of the Bill—to which, admirably, the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and others have drawn our attention—it allows, in great measure, for a spirit of litigation.

Mr. Wigley: The hon. Gentleman has tempted me to intervene. I know that my reaction is delayed; it is the shock.
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the process—although it is a process—can go no faster or further than the people of Wales want, or even than the House permits? The long stop, in terms of legislation, rests with the House.

Mr. Letwin: That is an interesting point, which the Committee ought to ponder.
I entirely accept that it will not be possible to go further or faster than the Welsh assembly desires, and, to the extent that the assembly reflects opinion in Wales, I suppose that it must be true that it will not be possible to go further or faster than the majority opinion in Wales wishes. However, once a constitutional muddle is established as the Bill establishes it, in the absence of a


measure such as new clause 36, the natural means by which that muddle will be resolved is one for which the Bill provides: litigation before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and, in some cases, lower courts leading to that.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that there is no knowing where that process will lead. It will be taken out of the hands of elected representatives, Welsh or otherwise, and placed in the hands of judges—on the whole, English judges—who will decide most of the important issues. New clause 36—I refer to it before the Secretary of State tries to get the Chair to call me to order—tries to deal with that.
The new clause may well be described as insufficient, inadequate and inelegant. On behalf of Front Benchers, I think that I can accept all those accolades. The important point that it raises, however, is undeniable. It seeks to establish some mechanism to make a reality of the rhetoric that the Secretary of State and his Ministers have repeatedly given the Committee, in the absence of the slightest substance in the Bill.
Nowhere, other than in new clause 36, do we see even an attempt to create the mechanics for co-operation. That is extraordinary. We have been told repeatedly that well-documented causes of litigation and strife will be avoided simply through a new spirit, without being vouchsafed a single set of mechanics for that new spirit save a mysterious entity called "the concordat". That is not provided for in any way in the Bill.
There is every reason for the Committee to look at new clause 36 as a probing measure, which is how our friends in Plaid Cymru once described another new clause. It seeks to elicit from the Government the slightest concrete example of how they will engender this supposed spirit of amity and avoid what, despite the evident smiles of Government Front-Bench spokesmen, I confidently predict will lead to the Government's misery in the years ahead. That will happen as the predictions of litigation are seen to be true rather than merely hypothetical, and as the Government find themselves unable to deal with that because the courts have taken over from elected representatives.

Dr. John Marek: I oppose the new clause. The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) is quite wrong. The functions of the National Assembly for Wales will be entirely different from the functions of this place. The assembly will operate on a committee system and everybody will have an important role in executing the functions that the assembly decides. In this place there is much hot air and very little else.
How many amendments have been accepted by the Government? There might have been one or two but, generally, decisions are made not in the Chamber but in the ministerial corridors or across the road in Whitehall. This is the place for talk and the hon. Member for West Dorset seeks to transfer talking to the assembly. I do not think that we want too much of that in Wales. We can certainly talk, but we want decisions as well.

Mr. Letwin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Marek: I intend to be brief, so I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman and then quickly finish my speech.

Mr. Letwin: Was the hon. Gentleman here when we conclusively showed, and I think that the Secretary of

State admitted, that it was within the scope of the powers of each of the Committees to which the hon. Gentleman so lovingly refers, to delegate its entire power to a Secretary who would be a de facto member of the Cabinet? If that is the case, does the hon. Gentleman think that there will be the slightest difference between this place and the assembly to the extent to which this Chamber is a talking shop? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Secretaries would be able to wage war on this place and on the Government through the courts?

Dr. Marek: They may wish to wage war, and rightly so, but I do not think that that is the issue. It would be wrong for all the functions of a Committee to be delegated to a Secretary. I have reasonable confidence that that will not happen because of the committee system that is envisaged for the assembly.

Mr. Letwin: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman has that confidence. If he reads Hansard he will see that the Secretary of State admitted that the Bill contains powers for each Committee to do precisely what I have described.

Dr. Marek: I have lived in Wales for a long time and I understand what will happen. The hon. Gentleman can take it from me that there will be far more co-operation and committee work in the assembly than there is here because there is none in this place. That is the problem. I accept that what the hon. Gentleman outlines may happen to some degree, although I hope that it will not. If it does, the new clause would simply add to the problem. The last thing that anybody in Wales and many hon. Members with a different rigour about them and a different purpose in life want to see is time wasting, talking for hours on end in an assembly that ought to be deciding important matters for the Welsh people. I hope that the Minister, although perhaps not for the reasons that I have enunciated, does not give way on the new clause.

Mr. Win Griffiths: This has been an interesting debate and I thank the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) for moving the new clause. Under clause 32 of the Bill, the Secretary of State has to consult the assembly on the Government's legislative programme. Clause 75 entitles the Secretary of State to attend and participate in the assembly's debates. The new clause goes much wider than that because it seeks to create a sort of Welsh assembly grand committee in which anyone who has been elected to the assembly or to this place can join in the fun. It takes only two or three seconds to realise that such a proposal is totally impractical. We would have to ensure, first, that we virtually doubled the size of the assembly's chamber, because it would be disastrous—we would never hear the end of it—if 40 Members of the Assembly turned up and there were no places for them.
We must realise also that hon. Members and Members of the Assembly will have completely different responsibilities. As an hon. Member who does not intend to be a Member of the Assembly, I foresee no good purpose being served by my trying to rush between London and south Wales to participate in assembly debates on matters in which Welsh hon. Members will have a full role in this place.
The assembly could perhaps pass on to hon. Members its papers and proceedings. If hon. Members want to spend time dealing with those, it will be up to them. However, I do not think that the new clause would assist in helping the assembly to perform its job effectively.
The directly elected Members of the Assembly and hon. Members will also return to the same constituency parties. I am quite sure that that is the place where co-operative relations might develop. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for North Essex will withdraw the motion.

Mr. Evans: I am rather disappointed by that reply. Although new clause 36 is only a probing measure, we tabled it not only because it mirrors clause 75 but because it would include our desire to provide Welsh hon. Members with the same opportunities as the Secretary of State for Wales to attend the assembly's main proceedings and functions—although not to attend its Committees or sub-committees. The new clause certainly does not propose that Welsh hon. Members should be allowed a vote in the assembly's proceedings.
We thought that the new clause would be an ideal opportunity to provide an assembly that will shortly be born with the wealth of experience of Members of Parliament representing Welsh constituencies, some of whom have served well the House for many years.

Mr. Ron Davies: Name them.

Mr. Evans: I am too embarrassed to name them, because of those I would exclude rather than those I might include.
Some very experienced hon. Members represent Welsh constituencies. The Minister said—it was almost a criticism—that hon. Members, unless they represent regions, would serve exactly the same constituencies as Members of the Assembly. That is absolutely correct. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said, the new clause would allow a dialogue between hon. Members—with their knowledge and insight of what is happening in this place—and Members of the Assembly, and would allow Welsh hon. Members to participate fully in the assembly's major debates, thereby enriching and enlightening those debates.

Mr. Öpik: In the spirit of what the hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve, would it not be more sensible to invite Members of the Assembly to Westminster when we are debating Welsh issues—rather than to clog up the assembly's business with lots of questions from hon. Members?

Mr. Evans: It would be a fine thing if, as we look forward to our St. David's day debate, we could debate Welsh issues the day after St. David's day. However, I think that we will all have to travel to Cardiff or to Swansea or to wherever the Welsh assembly will be sited to participate in Welsh affairs.
Hon. Members would not attend the assembly's debates on a daily basis. They have work and functions at Westminster, for which they will have to prepare. They will also have their constituency work, and want to participate in our debates in the Chamber and in Committees at Westminster. However, on some occasions they may want to participate, particularly in debates involving their constituencies. They would not have the opportunity to vote or to participate in the Committee or Sub-Committee stage. I was rather hoping that the Minister might have been as generous as he was in respect of a previous new clause, but I understand that that is not to be, so I leave it to my hon. Friend formally to withdraw the motion.

Mr. Jenkin: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 39

ROLE OF JOINT COMMITTEE ON STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

'(1).— The subordinate legislation procedures must include provision for ensuring that, before a draft of a statutory instrument containing Assembly general subordinate legislation is laid before the Assembly, the draft is—

(a) submitted to the parliamentary Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments ("the Committee"), and
(b) approved by the Committee without adverse comment.

(2) When any draft is submitted to the Committee under this section, the Committee shall report within a reasonable period as to whether it approves the draft without adverse comment.
(3) Adverse comment on a draft shall only be made by the Committee on any of the grounds (so far as applicable) on which the Committee is empowered to draw a statutory instrument to the special attention of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Jenkin.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Jenkin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
All statutory instruments laid before Parliament are considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, composed of Members of both Houses and usually chaired by an Opposition Member. Its remit is to focus upon technical rather than policy matters and to ensure that draft subordinate legislation conforms with the primary legislation from which it derives. It might ask, for instance, whether the Minister who made the order was acting within his powers or whether the drafting was defective. It is not a political Committee and it does not consider political issues; it performs a valuable task in scrutinising the thousands of pieces of legislation that Ministers produce and that never cross the consciousness of the vast majority of right hon. and hon. Members.
The new clause would require the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments to consider any draft subordinate legislation before it was considered by the assembly simply for the purpose of ensuring that the legislation was technically appropriate and would achieve what Ministers had intended. If the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments reported adversely, the draft could not become law. It would then be a simple matter of the statutory instrument in question being amended or revised so that it could be passed by the Committee and the assembly. It could then become law.
The new clause is not designed to limit the political powers of the assembly; it is simply a safeguard to ensure that the statutory instruments that it considers conform with the primary Acts of Parliament from which they derive so that the scope for getting into a muddle about legislation is considerably reduced.

Mr. Livsey: I am sure that the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) is proposing the new clause from the best possible motives, but we see certain disadvantages stemming from it. In spite of what the hon. Gentleman said, it would certainly create more bureaucracy that would slow up decision making and reduce the effectiveness of the assembly. We believe that it takes away some of what little power the assembly will have.
We should like to know the definition of "a reasonable period". The Conservative interpretation of the word "reasonable" has not always inspired confidence—and I am putting that gently. The new clause opens up a number of ways by which statutory instruments could be delayed and in the process it would tend to reduce the powers of the assembly.

Mr. David Tredinnick: I am grateful for the opportunity to address the issue. I welcome the new clause tabled by my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, as I recognise that there are still many grey areas in the likely relationship between the Welsh assembly and Westminster on the scrutiny of statutory instruments. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which I chair, has raised the issue with the Leader of the House. I am grateful for the reply that I received today, which says that the issue is still under consideration and that a full response will be forthcoming as soon as possible. We hope that the memorandum that the Leader of the House has promised to issue with the Welsh Office will set out the Government's position in detail. They have not done so to date.
The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has three main concerns: first, arrangements for co-operation between it and its counterpart in the Welsh assembly, particularly over joint instruments, which, under the Bill as drafted, will be made jointly by Ministers of the Crown and the assembly; secondly, the potential for conflict between the two Committees over similar instruments laid before the assembly and Parliament; and thirdly, the scrutiny of instruments derived from European obligations.
The new clause would give the JCSI more powers over Welsh legislation than it currently has over United Kingdom instruments. Many hon. Members have argued for a long time that it should have more powers. In a sense, the new clause is a step in the right direction. However, the Government are not currently required to act if the Committee criticises an instrument. Making our adverse comment on an instrument sufficient to stop it in its tracks would be a major change. That is not the only solution, but it would be one way to focus attention on the scrutiny of delegated legislation, which is too often neglected.
That illustrates how the role of the JCSI must be considered when planning arrangements for the scrutiny of secondary legislation in the context of the Welsh assembly and the Scottish Parliament. It cannot be left

to chance after the assembly has begun to work. If it is, the situation will be chaotic. That will be in the interests neither of Wales nor of the United Kingdom Parliament. I am pleased to see the Secretary of State nodding about that. Potential areas of confusion and difficulty must be identified and solutions found. The JCSI will continue to press on that, but it will also co-operate in any way that it can with the assembly, once established.
I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply. It is a great pity that the Government have not been able to address the issue earlier in the passage of the Bill. It touches on many vital issues. The Committee checks the legality of a good deal of legislation. It is a pity that the House has not been able to look in detail at the Government's proposals. In fact, it has not had any proposals to look at.
I exhort the Secretary of State to talk to the Leader of the House and to give us the Government's position face up, so that we can consider it. That must happen before the Bill goes to another place.

Mr. Grieve: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) in his comments on the new clause and the way in which statutory instruments are subjected to scrutiny. I also have the pleasure of serving on the Joint Committee.
The issue is not a tug of war for power between the House of Commons and the assembly. It is a question of the absolute necessity of maintaining a degree of conformity of practice and drafting in the way in which statutory instruments are dealt with, whether in Wales or England.
Scotland has a separate legal system and it will have a separate Parliament. I accept that the situation there is bound to be different, even though there will clearly also have to be considerable co-ordination. None the less, we are to continue to have a common legal system in this country—which is England and Wales. As long as that is so, it is essential that subordinate legislation, whether created in Cardiff or wherever else the assembly may sit, or in this place, should be drafted in a way that does not give rise to problems.
We also ought to bear in mind that we in this House are privileged to have a body of expertise in the Speaker's Counsel and assistants to the Speaker's Counsel on the way in which subordinate legislation is drafted.
I endorse every word that my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth said about the fact that the role of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments is insufficient to meet the amount of legislation that is coming through by statutory instrument. It is also insufficient to scrutinise and check as one would wish some of the gobbledegook to which we are subjected. The new clause provides an opportunity to put our house in order on the way in which both the Welsh assembly and the House proceed with statutory instruments.
I hope that the Minister and the Secretary of State will bear those points in mind. This is really a non-partisan issue. It is a question of ensuring that, when the assembly is introducing statutory instruments in 10 years' time in order to achieve exactly the same effect as those being introduced here, we do not end


up with the ludicrous situation of such statutory instruments being different in content and legal interpretation. That could happen; there is no adequate mechanism to prevent it.
Regardless of whether the Government are prepared to accept new clause 39, I ask that we are given some adequate replies on the way in which the matter will be dealt with. It will be interesting to know where, for instance, expertise will be found immediately to provide advice to the assembly when it is set up.

Mr. Ron Davies: In Wales.

Mr. Grieve: It may be in Wales, but it will still have to be found. It is likely that a degree of co-ordination with expertise available in the House will be required.

Mr. Letwin: At the risk of sending the Secretary of State to sleep—he is clearly near to the point of quiescence—I should like to go slightly beyond what my hon. Friends have said.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Not beyond the new clause.

Mr. Letwin: Certainly not.
What is proposed in new clause 39 is not in any way surprising. What is surprising is that there is no clause equivalent to its effect in the Bill. Clauses 59 and 60 set up a system which, in the absence of new clause 39, yet further intensifies—the Secretary of State and his colleagues may by now have noticed that this has been a theme of mine in this Committee—the potential for litigation. That goes to the heart of the Bill; new clause 39 is profound in its implications.
Surprisingly, there is no check other than that proposed by new clause 39 or some substitute for it on the Welsh assembly's interpretation of its own powers to engage in subordinate legislation—other than, of course, the courts and ultimately the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Clauses 59 and 60 are so structured as precisely to permit a majority of the assembly to constitute a majority of the statutory instruments Committees, which could decide to legitimate, or appear to legitimate, as a piece of subordinate legislation an action that was entirely ultra vires. If new clause 39 is not accepted, the Bill will contain no limit on that.
Ministers have assured us—indeed, it is part of the essence of their argument—that they are establishing a structure that permits the Welsh assembly to engage only in subordinate legislation. That is a fine phrase, but if it is rendered meaningless by repeated decisions of the relevant Committee of the Welsh assembly that items that are clearly primary in intent and would not, in this House, qualify as subordinate are nevertheless subordinate, that can be challenged within the structure of the Bill without new clause 39 only through the courts and ultimately in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. New clause 39 would rescue the Secretary of State and his colleagues from a manifest lacuna in the Bill and I should have thought that, far from giggling themselves into a pleasant pre-nuptial sleep with the Bill—[Interruption.]—I stress,

with the Bill, they should be grateful to my right hon. and hon. Friends for tabling an amendment that rescues them from that lacuna and fills it so admirably.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I cannot go for a pre-nuptial sleep, but I have been looking forward to sleeping and I have to admit that the debate was pushing me towards that state, but occasionally awaking me with horror at what I was hearing.
Paragraphs 4.22 and 4.27 of the White Paper made it clear that the assembly would have its own procedures for formulating and approving subordinate legislation. Those are set out in part III of the Bill. Following the precedent of section 75 of the Wales Act 1978, clause 43—I am surprised no one referred to this—provides for parliamentary procedures generally to cease to apply to subordinate legislation made by the assembly. The assembly will be an elected body able to make its own subordinate legislation and it will be directly accountable to the people of Wales for its actions.
In the Government's view it would be inappropriate for all the assembly's subordinate legislation to have to be referred to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Clause 59 establishes a subordinate legislation Scrutiny Committee whose role will be analogous to that of the Joint Committee, but there is one major and important difference and I hope that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) will accept that it is an improvement. Whereas the Joint Committee's evaluation of a statutory instrument often takes place after the instrument has been made and laid before Parliament, the assembly's Scrutiny Committee will perform its functions before the formal making of the instrument. Indeed, the effect of clause 65(5)(a), subject to clause 66, is that the assembly may not make any general subordinate legislation without having before it a report on the draft from its Scrutiny Committee.

Mr. Grieve: I do not disagree with any of that—it is an improvement on the House's procedure for the scrutiny of subordinate legislation—but the key question is whether the Minister agrees that a great deal of the subordinate legislation will, of necessity, be identical in intent to that which will be passed by the House. How, for the sake of legal clarity and the maintenance of conformity, are we to retain parity of wording? If that is not regarded as important, will the Minister explain why it is not?

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman may be getting rather exercised because of the desperation he has felt in meetings of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. He needs to bear in mind that the National Assembly for Wales will be serviced by civil servants currently in the Welsh Office and from other parts of the United Kingdom who want to be a part of this exciting new project. When scrutinising statutory instruments, a wealth of experience will be available to help Members of the Assembly judge what the best wording will be. I do not think that we need to get over-worried about that, although I can see why the


hon. Gentleman finds it easy to become exercised about such matters when serving on the Joint Committee deep in the bowels of this place.

Mr. Tredinnick: My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has raised a valid point. I want to draw to the Committee's attention a problem that it has not addressed—European legislation. Although a number of learned counsel advise the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, it is difficult to ensure that the instruments conform to the requirements of the European Parliament and European legislation. Having scrutinised these instruments for some time, I am worried about how we can ensure a proper interface between legislative bodies so that there is no difference in the legality of instruments in England and in Wales.

Mr. Griffiths: I think that I have got the drift of the hon. Gentleman's argument. I appreciate that, as Chairman of the Joint Committee, he has particular concerns and is deeply enmeshed in all the difficulties that that Committee faces, but he should remember that Members of the Welsh assembly will be served by civil servants. If Members feel that there is a tricky problem with European legislation or something else, they may ask how the issue is dealt with in the House of Commons. I am confident that people will apply their common sense to all these issues, about which we can become far too worried.
Clause 60 provides for the assembly's Scrutiny Committee to be chaired by a member of a minority party and prevents the assembly Secretaries from being members of it. We believe that that gives us good internal audit—the assembly's secondary legislation will be properly scrutinised.
The memorandums to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments about the assembly's subordinate legislation procedures will be forthcoming shortly and I hope that they will allay all the fears that have been expressed. Given that, I hope that the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) will withdraw the motion.

Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to the Minister for the trouble he has taken in responding to the motion. I was interested to hear that my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), as Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, has discussed these matters with the Leader of the House and others.
I do not want to sound a sour note, but it is rather typical of our proceedings that information has trickled out, sometimes even after the event. It would have been nice to have such a memorandum before this debate. I accept that the debate started 20 minutes early, but I do not expect that we shall see the memorandum tonight. Will the Minister assure us that the Leader of the House will issue the memorandum before Report so that we can debate the issues that arise if we so choose?

Mr. Win Griffiths: I understand that the memorandum is close to completion. We shall certainly make it available to hon. Members as soon as possible. I cannot make an absolute commitment on timing, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that it will be available very soon.

Mr. Jenkin: I wonder whether the Minister could make representations to the Leader of the House about

the memorandum. In the spirit of the age and of the new politics, which the Minister clearly espouses for the assembly, I take him to mean that we will see the memorandum as soon as possible and probably before Report. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Schedule 1

FORESTRY COMMISSIONERS

Separate exercise of functions in relation to Wales

1.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order make provision for securing—

(a) the separate exercise in relation to Wales of functions of the Forestry Commissioners, and
(b) the exercise of functions by the Forestry Commissioners in relation to Wales free from so much of any requirements as would oblige them to have regard to circumstances outside Wales or to interests other than those of Wales.

(2) An order under this paragraph may include provisions in the form of amendments or repeals of the Forestry Act 1967 or any other enactment.
(3) The functions of the Forestry Commissioners—

(a) may be exercised in relation to Wales whether or not they are exercised in relation to England or Scotland, and
(b) may be exercised differently in relation to Wales on the one hand and England or Scotland on the other.

2.—(1) This paragraph applies where a function of the Forestry Commissioners to make any subordinate legislation is exercised by the making of a statutory instrument containing only provision relating to Wales.
(2) Any relevant Parliamentary procedural provision within section 43(3)(a), (b) or (c) which relates to the function shall not have effect in relation to the exercise of the function.
(3) Instead (but subject to sub—paragraph (4)), the subordinate legislation shall not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing it has been laid before and approved by the Assembly.
(4) But the subordinate legislation may be made without compliance with sub—paragraph (3) if the Forestry Commissioners determine that, in the particular circumstances, it is not reasonably practicable to comply with that sub—paragraph.
(5) If the subordinate legislation is made without compliance with sub-paragraph (3)—

(a) the statutory instrument containing it shall be laid before the Assembly after it is made, and
(b) any Assembly member shall be entitled to move, within the period of forty working days (construed in accordance with section 66(7)) beginning with the day on which the instrument is laid before the Assembly, that the subordinate legislation be revoked.

(6) If, pursuant to a motion made within that period, the Assembly resolves that the subordinate legislation be revoked, the resolution revokes it.
(7) The provision imposing or conferring the function of making the subordinate legislation includes power to make any provision which appears appropriate in consequence of its revocation by the resolution.
(8) Neither the passing of a resolution under sub—paragraph (6) revoking any subordinate legislation nor the making of an order under sub—paragraph (7) in consequence of the revocation—

(a) affects the validity of anything done under the subordinate legislation before its revocation, or
(b) prevents the making of new subordinate legislation.



3. Nothing in section (Forestry Commissioners' finances) or this Schedule affects the status of the Forestry Commissioners as a government department or the status of the officers and servants appointed or employed by them.

Receipts

4.—(1) Any sums received by the Forestry Commissioners—

(a) under section (Forestry Commissioners' finances), or
(b) (subject to sub—paragraphs (2) and (3)) in respect of any transactions carried out by them in the exercise of any of their functions in relation to Wales,
shall be applied by them towards meeting their expenditure on the exercise of their functions in relation to Wales.

(2) The Treasury may direct that any sums within sub—paragraph (1)(b) which are, or are of a description, specified in the direction shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.
(3) The Assembly may direct that any sums within subparagraph (1)(b) which are, or are of a description, specified in the direction shall be paid to the Assembly.
(4) A direction under sub-paragraph (3) may be varied or revoked by a direction under sub—paragraph (2) (as well as by another direction under sub—paragraph (3)).

Accounts

5.—(1) The Forestry Commissioners shall keep proper accounting records relating to their Welsh finances.
(2) In this Schedule references to the Welsh finances of the Forestry Commissioners are to

(a) sums within paragraph 4(1) received by them, and
(b) expenditure by them on the exercise of their functions in relation to Wales.

(3) The Forestry Commissioners shall, for each financial year of the Assembly, prepare accounts relating to their Welsh finances in accordance with directions given to them by the Treasury.
(4) The directions which the Treasury may give under subparagraph (3) include, in particular, directions as to—

(a) the information to be contained in the accounts and the manner in which it is to be presented,
(b) the methods and principles in accordance with which the accounts are to be prepared, and
(c) the additional information (if any) that is to accompany the accounts.

Audit

6.—(1) The accounts prepared by the Forestry Commissioners under paragraph 5 for any financial year of the Assembly shall be submitted by them to the Auditor General for Wales no later than five months after the end of that financial year.

(2) The Auditor General for Wales shall—

(a) examine and certify any accounts submitted to him under this paragraph, and
(b) no later than four months after the accounts are submitted to him, lay before the Assembly a copy of them as certified by him together with his report on them.

(3) In examining any accounts submitted to him under this paragraph, the Auditor General for Wales shall, in particular, satisfy himself that the expenditure to which the accounts relate has been incurred lawfully and in accordance with the authority which governs it.

Accounting officer

7.—(1) The Treasury shall designate one of the Forestry Commissioners or an officer of the Forestry Commissioners as the Forestry Commissioners' accounting officer for Wales.

(2) The person designated as the Forestry Commissioners' accounting officer for Wales shall have, in relation to the Welsh finances of the Forestry Commissioners and to accounts relating to the Welsh finances of the Forestry Commissioners, the responsibilities which are from time to time specified by the Treasury.
(3) In this paragraph references to responsibilities include in particular—

(a) responsibilities in relation to the signing of accounts,
(b) responsibilities for the propriety and regularity of finances, and
(c) responsibilities for the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which the resources of the Forestry Commissioners are used in discharging their functions in relation to Wales.

(4) The responsibilities which may be specified under this paragraph include responsibilities owed to—

(a) the Assembly or the Audit Committee, or
(b) the House of Commons or its Committee of Public Accounts.

Examinations into use of resources

8.—(1) The Auditor General for Wales may carry out examinations into the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which the Forestry Commissioners have used their resources in discharging their functions in relation to Wales.

(2) Sub-paragraph (1) shall not be construed as entitling the Auditor General for Wales to question the merits of the policy objectives of the Forestry Commissioners.

(3) In determining how to exercise his functions under this paragraph, the Auditor General for Wales shall take into account the views of the Audit Committee as to the examinations which he should carry out under this paragraph.

(4) The Auditor General for Wales may lay before the Assembly a report of the results of any examination carried out by him under this paragraph.

(5) The Auditor General for Wales and the Comptroller and Auditor General may co-operate with, and give assistance to, each other in connection with the carrying out of examinations in respect of the Forestry Commissioners under this paragraph or section 6 of the National Audit Act 1983 (economy etc. examinations).

Examinations by the Comptroller and Auditor General

9.—(1) For the purpose of enabling him to carry out examinations into, and report to Parliament on, the Welsh finances of the Forestry Commissioners, the Comptroller and Auditor General—

(a) shall have a right of access at all reasonable times to all such documents in the custody or under the control of the Forestry Commissioners, or of the Auditor General for Wales, as he may reasonably require for that purpose, and
(b) shall be entitled to require from any person holding or accountable for any of those documents any assistance, information or explanation which he reasonably thinks necessary for that purpose.

(2) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall—

(a) consult the Auditor General for Wales, and
(b) take into account any relevant work done or being done by the Auditor General for Wales,
before he acts in reliance on sub—paragraph (1) or carries out an examination in respect of the Forestry Commissioners under section 6 of the National Audit Act 1983 (economy etc. examinations).

Reports

10.—(1) The Forestry Commissioners shall, no later than such time after the end of each financial year of the Assembly as the Assembly directs, make a report in such form as the Assembly directs about the exercise of the Forestry Commissioners' functions in relation to Wales during that financial year.


(2) The Forestry Commissioners shall lay before the Assembly any report made under sub—paragraph (1) and the Assembly shall publish it.

Interpretation

11. References in this Schedule to the Welsh finances of the Forestry Commissioners shall be construed in accordance with paragraph 5(2).'.[Mr. Ron Davies.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clauses 141 and 142 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 14

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 491, in page 123, leave out lines 16 to 19.

No. 492, in page 123, column 3, leave out lines 27 to 29.

No. 515, in page 129, line 5, at end insert—

'PART V


RESIDUARY BODY FOR WALES


1994 c. 19.
The Local Government (Wales) Act 1994.
In Schedule 13, in paragraph 18, in subparagraph (3), the words "Subject to sub—paragraph (4)," and sub—paragraph (4).'.

[Mr. Ron Davies.]

Schedule 14, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 143 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 144

ORDERS AND DIRECTIONS

Mr. Jenkin: I beg to move amendment No. 513, in page 67, line 6, leave out from 'applies' to end of line 27 and insert
'to all orders under this Act.'.
The amendment is essentially probing; it is designed to give the Government the opportunity to explain the purpose of the clause. We have already heard that the Government are most unhappy that this Parliament should have any scrutiny over anything that has been devolved to the Welsh assembly. The clause says:
No order … shall be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
The clause then lists a large number of exceptions. By deleting the exceptions, the amendment would obviously act as a sledgehammer, but it is designed to elicit a response from the Minister. Will he illuminate the Committee on the mechanics and purpose of the clause?

Mr. Collins: The amendment deals with some extremely important matters. As the clause stands, Parliament would not debate, other than in special circumstances, matters relating to the date of the elections; payment under certain circumstances to Members of the Assembly; transfers of property; the role of the Auditor

General for Wales; the staff of the Development Board for Rural Wales; and the role of the Welsh Development Agency. Those are important matters. [Interruption.]
The Secretary of State may say that that is devolution—

Mr. Ron Davies: It was not me.

Mr. Collins: Well, another hon. Member must have said—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. It would help very much if we did not have sedentary interventions, and also if hon. Members did not respond to them.

Mr. Collins: I shall make a point of not doing so, Mr. Lord.
It is important for the Government to put it on the record why they do not intend to permit Parliament to have proper scrutiny of such legislation. It is not good enough to say that it is all a matter of devolution, as if the United Kingdom Parliament no longer had any role. Such important matters need to be discussed in the future, as today.

Mr. Letwin: I have no hesitation in depriving the Secretary of State of his beauty sleep for a little longer to discuss amendment No. 513, which—if anything—my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) undersold. His brilliance in drafting it exceeds his rhetoric. I hope that the Minister who responds to the debate will answer some serious questions about what clause 144, in the absence of the amendment, would achieve.
I wish to direct the Minister's attention to the powers that the Bill will give the Secretary of State to make orders, including those powers in clause 22, which the Secretary of State clearly believes—judging from a remark he made earlier—are qualified by the restrictions in clause 23. However, on Report, we may raise our doubts about whether that clause is sufficiently tightly drafted to have such restrictive effects.
10.45 pm
In the absence of amendment No. 513, would clause 144 have the effect that orders transferring additional powers to the Welsh assembly could be passed by the House of Commons by negative resolution, without even 90 minutes of debate? If so, that is a remarkable constitutional departure, which should have been included in the White Paper but was not and should have been described by the Secretary of State but has not been. Clause 144 is a case either of bad drafting—as we hve experienced frequently with the Bill—or of intent. I may have mistaken the purport of the clause, but it would be helpful if the Minister elucidated it for the Committee.
How will clause 144 operate in the absence of amendment No. 513? Is not the amendment necessary to force orders made under clause 22, as possibly restricted by clause 23, to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure? That is the minimum that the House could demand of further transfers of its powers to the Welsh assembly. It is the most extraordinary feature of an ill-conceived Bill that the House should be asked to allow


the Secretary of State to transfer its powers to another body by order instead of by primary legislation. That is an aberration.
However, we have passed that point in the Bill and we are considering the effects of clause 144. The very least that any responsible House of Commons could demand of the Secretary of State is that further transfers of its powers should be by affirmative resolution. If I have misunderstood the purport of clause 144, the Minister should explain the situation. If I have correctly understood it, the Minister has not a leg to stand on unless he is willing to accept amendment No. 513.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Clause 144 seems to have exercised the minds of Conservative Members; they have tabled the Little Big Horn amendment in a desperate last stand, to prevent the whole purpose of the Bill from being achieved. The Bill is about the government of Wales and the devolution of powers to the national assembly. Clause 144 provides that all powers to make orders are to be exercisable by statutory instrument and sets out the required parliamentary procedures for the Secretary of State's order-making powers. Orders in Council are already required to be exercised by statutory instrument under the Statutory Instruments Act 1946.
Clause 144 sets out the parliamentary procedures that will apply to orders made under the Bill. More significant orders, especially those exercising the so-called Henry VIII powers, are to be subject to laying in draft and affirmative resolution. More technical matters are to be subject only to the negative resolution process. That approach is in accordance with long-standing practice under other statutes, and I am surprised that Conservative Members object in this instance.

Mr. Letwin: The Minister may implicitly have admitted what I was asking about, but will he clarify the matter? Is he therefore agreeing that, under clause 144 as it stands, in the absence of amendment No. 513, it would be possible to make orders under clause 22, by negative resolution?

Mr. Griffiths: Clause 22(4)(a) provides that the affirmative resolution procedure will apply to all Orders in Council under clause 22. If the hon. Gentleman looks at clause 22, he will see that all Orders in Council will go through the affirmative resolution procedure.

Mr. Letwin: That is the issue that led me to the conclusion that there must be a failure of drafting; will the Minister comment? Clause 22(4)(a) does not appear to have the effect that he described. It appears directly to contradict clause 144. Which will prevail, and why does he imagine that clause 22(4)(a) will prevail?

Mr. Griffiths: I do not believe that there is any contradiction, because this part of the Bill refers to an order made by the Secretary of State, to which clause 144 applies; and clause 22 refers to an Order in Council. The two are different. Given the time of the night, and as there are other things to do before we conclude our proceedings, perhaps we should conduct some correspondence to settle the matter if there is any need to do so.

Mr. Jenkin: May I clarify that the Minister is saying that there is a difference between "make an order" under clause 144(1), where it says,
Any power of the Secretary of State or the Assembly under this Act to make an order",
and an Order in Council, and that therefore he is satisfied that an Order in Council would not be covered by clause 144? I believe that that would answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin).

Mr. Griffiths: I am satisfied that the two are mutually exclusive and deal with separate issues, but as these are difficult and complex technical matters, I am fully prepared to look at the matter again and let hon. Members know well before Report, so that we may return to it if there is a problem. However, I am pretty confident that it is as I have said.
As amendment No. 513 is phrased, it would require us to debate in the House and approve the transfer to the assembly of specific property, rights or liabilities; the purposes for which the office of Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools in Wales is to be treated as a Government Department; and the transfer of staff to the new Welsh Development Agency. A load of technical things would be caught by the amendment, so I hope that the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) will withdraw it.

Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), who extended the debate in a most interesting and informative fashion, and I am grateful to the Minister for replying. I look forward to the correspondence to which the Minister refers, if there is a need for it.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 542, in page 67, line 9, after & 141' insert
'or paragraph 1 of Schedule (Forestry Cotrunissioners)'.
No. 543, in page 67, line 21, leave out 'or'.
No. 544, in page 67, line 21, after & 5' insert
'or paragraph 1 of Schedule (Forestry Commissioners)'.—[Mr. Ron Davies.]

Clause 144, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 145

INTERPRETATION

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 516, in page 67, line 41, after 'Treasury', insert—
'"Secretary of State" means the Secretary of State for Wales.'.
This is a short amendment, but no less important for that. The amendment seeks, where the words "Secretary of State" appear in the Bill—as they do frequently—to substitute the words "Secretary of State for Wales". That arises from several questions that have been asked in these proceedings, to which we have not received totally satisfactory answers.
I may say that I am not seeking at this stage to find out from the Secretary of State by way of the amendment whether he intends to be that Secretary of


State or whether he will have moved on to other matters in Cardiff, Swansea or wherever it might be. He has shown an unnatural and unaccustomed coyness on the matter, and he has been sufficiently embarrassed today for me not to press him further.
The Under-Secretary has just said that this is the Government of Wales Bill and that the Government are seeking devolution. It seems extraordinary, therefore, that we should leave in the Bill a provision that could suggest that what had been done by the Secretary of State for Wales in the past could be done in future by any Secretary of State.
My understanding is that the term Secretary of State can be applied to anybody who carries that title in the Government. Fifteen members of the Cabinet are described as Secretaries of State. Each of them would fit the nomenclature in the Bill and would be able to exercise the powers given to the Secretary of State. Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer also a Secretary of State for these purposes, and is that true also of the Chief Secretary, the President of the Council and the Lord Privy Seal?
Under the Bill, various powers are to be exercised by the Secretary of State. Under clause 3, he deals with elections; under clause 16, he makes the early determinations in relation to allowances for Members of the Assembly; under clause 22, he lays the draft transfer of functions order; under clause 32, consultations on legislation are to take place under the auspices of the Secretary of State; under clause 80, which is extremely important, he determines the sums paid to the assembly for it to spend; and under clause 141 he has the draconian power to amend primary legislation by order.
If that is all in the hands of the Secretary of State for Wales, we can understand the position, but my fear is that—

Mr. Collins: My right hon. Friend has skipped one clause that immensely strengthens his case: clause 75, which states that
The Secretary of State for Wales shall be entitled to attend and participate in any proceedings of the Assembly.
If other references to the Secretary of State mean the Secretary of State for Wales, why does clause 75 contain that specific reference?

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. It underlines the fact that my anxieties are well founded. We might well find that no Secretary of State for Wales is involved in determining the sums to be given to the assembly, and that that will be decided by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I want to clarify the matter by inserting the words
Secretary of State for Wales".
If that is what is meant, there can be no harm in doing that. If that is not what is meant, we must fear for the position of the Secretary of State.
I recall that under the Stormont provisions relating to Northern Ireland, there was no Secretary of State. The duties of the Secretary of State were handled by a Minister of State in the Home Office as one of three portfolios. It would not be in the interests of Wales if that happened in this case, and if all the business was conducted by other Secretaries of State.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, who has had considerable experience in government, should have bothered to move the amendment. As the Committee knows, the Bill confers many functions and duties on the Secretary of State, rather than on a named office holder. That simply reflects the modern parliamentary drafting practice of not naming the individual ministerial offices in statute unless absolutely necessary.
I am pleased that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) drew attention to the fact that clause 75 refers specifically to the Secretary of State for Wales. Among all the Ministers of the Crown, only the Secretary of State for Wales will have the right to attend and participate in the debates of the National Assembly for Wales. In all other references, it is assumed, as in all other legislation, that the matter involves the Department of which that person is head.
I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not refer, for example, to clauses 23 and 87. That would have spoilt his argument. Those clauses refer to the Minister of the Crown when the intended meaning is not the Secretary of State. I hope that, after that brief explanation, it is clear that, when the term "Secretary of State" is used on its own, it means the Secretary of State for Wales. When we need to, we make it clear that it is only the Secretary of State for Wales. When the legislation applies to any other Minister, it is a Minister of the Crown.

Mr. Ancram: When we argued about devolution some months ago, we made it clear that we feared that the role of the Secretary of State for Wales would become so otiose that the position would disappear. Judging from the Minister's comments tonight, it is clear that the Secretary of State for Wales will have very limited functions, which will be designated in the Bill. I do not think that that bodes well for Wales. However, I do not think that I shall succeed in having the amendment accepted at this stage. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 145 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 146 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

It being Eleven o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Order [15 January] and the Resolution [24 February], put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Clauses 147 to 149 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with amendments.

Bill, as amended, to be considered tomorrow.

HOME AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Ordered,

That Mr. Douglas Hogg be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee and Mr. Nick Hawkins be added to the Committee.—[Mr. John McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

SCOTTISH AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Ordered,

That Rosemary McKenna be discharged from the Scottish Affairs Committee and Ms Sandra Osborne be added to the Committee.—[Mr. John McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

TREASURY COMMITTEE

Ordered,

That Mr. Tony Colman be discharged from the Treasury Committee and Mr. David Kidney be added to the Committee.—[Mr. John McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Community Hospitals

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clelland.]

Sir Michael Spicer: I am grateful for this opportunity to introduce a short debate on the very important subject of community hospitals. Community hospitals, as against local general district hospitals, have in recent years developed their own distinct role, ethos and dynamic. Linked to general practitioners' services and to other local health and social services, they provide a clear, specific and well-defined pattern of hospital services throughout the country. It is therefore all the more strange that their future should now be under threat.
There are 457 community hospitals in the United Kingdom, which provide approximately 10,000 beds—and several of my hon. Friends who are in the Chamber represent those hospitals. I am informed by the Association of Community Hospitals that 16 of those hospitals are now directly threatened with closure—as it happens, four of them are in Cornwall and four are in Norfolk—and that the continued existence of many others is under serious review.
Both the challenges and problems facing community hospitals are in no way specific to Worcestershire. However, there are reasons—not simply because I am the Member of Parliament for West Worcestershire—for using the case of the Worcestershire hospitals as an example of a more general problem.
Evesham hospital—which used to be in my constituency, but, following boundary changes, is now in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid—Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), who has been most assiduous in espousing its cause—is one of half a dozen or so community hospitals listed as nationally recognised models of good practice. While in the marginal seat of Worcester during the general election campaign, the Prime Minister promised to speed up the building of a new acute Worcester infirmary, and so put into question the future existence of the satellite community hospitals, two of which—Pershore and Malvern—are in my constituency.
Although the health authority has recently announced that closure of the Worcestershire community hospitals is not an option, the strains on the funding of the county's hospital services has left question marks, and a good deal of scepticism surrounds the announcement. Any cutting back of the support services on which community hospitals depend, or of the number of beds and services provided by hospitals, will threaten the viability of hospitals, especially the smaller ones, such as Malvern and Pershore. It is in that context that I raise points about community hospitals in general.
Community hospitals exist essentially for two purposes: first, to allow patients to recover from traumatic surgery and medical treatment near their homes and local services, such as those provided by their GPs and physio and occupational therapy, as well as social services, in some cases; and secondly, to provide palliative care for the terminally ill. The ever-present context to all this is a rapidly aging population.
Alongside the need for community-based medical support have been the explosive financial requirements of the high-technology acute specialist hospitals. As life-saving medicine has become more advanced and successful, so in general it has become more expensive. The average bed cost per week in Worcestershire health authority is £2,500 to £3,000. The comparable figure for community hospitals is between £800 and £1,000—roughly a third of the acute hospital costs. Equivalent figures exist throughout the country.
These figures are, of course, non-comparable. High-technology medicine is bound to be much more expensive than recuperative nursing. The problem is that in-patient bed audits show that a large proportion of patients occupying beds in expensive specialist hospitals could easily be transferred more swiftly to the more appropriate community-based hospital.
A recent analysis in Worcestershire revealed that up to 42 per cent. of patients currently occupying an acute hospital bed could be nursed at an alternative health facility. In other words, if patients were sent back to community hospitals in Worcestershire more rapidly than they are at present following major surgery or medical treatment, there could be considerable savings. That is particularly germane in Worcestershire, where the hospital system is running a rapidly growing overdraft, currently standing at some £15 million, with a recurring deficit on present budgets of £8.8 million.
The case for the community hospital is only in part financial. The core philosophy and ethos is rightly different in community and acute hospitals. The acute hospital is primarily concerned with the saving of lives in a medical crisis. Rehabilitation and palliative care, especially for the elderly, are different roles altogether. They are best performed alongside local health and social services.
The danger, and the reason for the debate, is that, in the nature of things, community hospitals throughout the land will be squeezed out by the inexorable, high-profile but expensive onward march of breakthrough technology in life-saving developments in acute hospitals.
No one would argue against pushing out the frontiers of applied medical knowledge. What is true is that, the more successful the advance in medicine, the greater the need for the recuperative work of the GP-led community hospital. As people live longer, due in some measure to the wonders of new technology, so the requirement will grow for nursing care for those who are terminally ill at one end of the spectrum, and for those who are recovering from traumatic medical experiences at the other.

Mr. Christopher Gill: As my hon. Friend knows, one of the hospitals administered by the Worcestershire health authority is sited in my constituency, in Burford, near Tenbury Wells. In respect of that hospital, the health authority is saying that it believes that there are opportunities to develop Pershore and Tenbury community hospitals in partnership with GPs.
In another part of my constituency, a community hospital has been run in conjunction with fundholding general practitioners. That has led to a vast improvement in the range and quality of services for the local community. 1 hope that my hon. Friend will recognise how important the link is between GPs and community

hospitals, and how the advent of fundholding gave an enormous impetus to the improvement in primary health care within local communities.

Sir Michael Spicer: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the definitions of community hospitals is that they are GP-led. The reforms that the Conservative Government introduced gave a boost to the entire community hospital movement. We are not sure what will emerge in terms of GP practice. We do not know whether they will fund-hold, and what other arrangements will be made. It will be a terrible shame if whatever emerges undermines the community-based, recuperative GP-led service, which the Conservative Government did so much to foster.

Mr. Shaun Woodward: My hon. Friend may be aware that, in my constituency in west Oxfordshire, the Burford community hospital is faced with the threat of imminent closure. I wonder whether my hon. Friend would agree with me that nothing so sadly illustrates the Government's lack of concern for rural communities as the prospect of closure of hospitals such as the Burford community hospital, which play such an important role in rural communities. I shall find only words that express deep regret if the Government do not, as they are proposing to do with village schools, take urgent action to redress the prospect of closures.

Sir Michael Spicer: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point, in two respects. First, he has identified yet another community hospital of which I was not aware which is under threat. Secondly, he makes the link between, especially, the smaller community hospitals and rural communities. Both those factors are extremely valuable additions to the case that I am trying to deploy.
Two functions are best provided locally—the palliative and the recuperative. These functions are best provided at the places where people live and where they have ready access to the services of their family doctors and the appropriate complementary rehabilitation services. My hon. Friend makes the strong point that that is especially true of rural areas such as his constituency and mine. The smaller rural hospitals are particularly under threat, where any cut and any removal of beds will make them less viable.

Mr. Peter Luff: Does my hon. Friend agree that small community hospitals such as the one at Evesham, about which he has spoken, are contributing enormously to the local communities they serve and are capable of developing remarkable expertise of their own? I think especially of the stroke rehabilitative work that is done at Evesham, which is testimony to what community hospitals can achieve. It is a potent example of why they must be saved at all costs.

Sir Michael Spicer: I must not delay the House for too long, but I know the Evesham community hospital well, because it was in the constituency that I represented for 23 years.
My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. If we start cutting, in the case of Evesham, for example, the Macmillan unit would be involved. Such units are funded with voluntary assistance. The moment we start pulling out some of the plugs, the entire edifice is in


danger of collapse. Since so much outrage has been expressed by the Conservative party about these matters, there is the worry that the authorities will not confront the problem directly. Instead, they may salami-slice some of the hospitals. That will be particularly serious if small hospitals are involved.

Mr. David Lock: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in Worcestershire, the root of the problems and the possibility of cuts, against which he rails, derive from an £8 million overspend that occurred substantially through mismanagement when the Conservative Government were in power, and when the people they appointed to the health authority were not managing it properly? So we now have substantial overspend, and a substantial accumulated deficit. That is the mess that the Government and the people they are appointing are having to sort out.

Sir Michael Spicer: We are rapidly running out of time when that argument can continue to be used. The countryside march yesterday showed that things are changing. We did not have these problems, and we did not have this debate, under the Conservative Administration. The Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition, came to Worcester for electoral reasons.

Mr. Michael J. Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Michael Spicer: I shall not give way, as the hon. Gentleman did not give way to me in the debate on fox hunting—that issue has become his trade mark.
Without having thought through the funding implications, the Prime Minister said when he came to Worcester that he would accelerate the building of a new acute hospital. Anyone who has examined the figures will know that that is what has brought this matter to a head, and is the reason why I secured this debate.

Mr. Gill: It may interest my hon. Friend to know that, when the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock) was a parliamentary candidate, he did not blame the health authority. He said that there was a lack of money, and that money was the answer to the problem.

Sir Michael Spicer: That is what Labour Members always say; there is nothing new about that. Labour local authorities also say that more money will do the trick, whereas what is often needed is better management. Most of the problems that are emerging under Labour did not exist under the Conservative Government.
The case for the relatively low-cost community hospital as distinct from the all-purpose, local general hospital, whose days may be numbered, may go by default. It needs to restated, and I am grateful for this opportunity to do so.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I congratulate the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) on securing this debate. This is an important issue. Community hospitals

excite much local concern in many parts of the country, and have a great deal of local support. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman has not read the White Paper "The New NHS", which deals with some of these issues in detail.
The hon. Gentleman asked for a clear steer on the direction of Government policy. Community hospitals are valued parts of the local health service in many areas. Patients value them because they tend to deliver services in a friendly and homely way. Our White Paper "The New NHS" sets out a vision of a service in which swift advice and treatment is available as close to home as possible. Community hospitals will be part of that vision in some places.
Dartford is different from Darlington, and it is the job of health authorities to ensure that local services are matched to local need. I thought that the Conservative Government supported that principle. If there has been a dramatic U-turn, I am happy to take an intervention on the issue; otherwise, I shall continue.
The hon. Gentleman is a strong supporter of Malvern community hospital in his constituency, and I understand his concerns. Public consultation on the future of health services across Worcestershire was launched last Monday by Worcestershire health authority with the document "Investing In Excellence". While that public consultation is taking place, it would be wrong for me to either endorse or oppose the preferred option of the Worcestershire health authority.
Different views and different options on the overall strategy for Worcestershire have been appraised by the health authority against a range of criteria, including clinical quality and accessibility. The preferred option is to centralise specialist services on one site—either Worcester or Bromsgrove depending on the specialism—with local access to diagnostic services, out-patient appointments and post-operative rehabilitation. Emergency services would also be available locally, with major trauma cases going to Worcester.
There are, of course, a number of options that the health authority must consider. One of those options—I think it was option seven, which is of most concern to the hon. Gentleman and, perhaps, other hon. Members—would involve integrating acute and community services across the county, with the closure of all community hospitals. Again, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the pros and cons of that wide variety of options while the consultation is in progress. The point is that it illustrates just how difficult the decision will be.
Clearly, only one option will finally be approved, and the criteria that we shall use to assess the issue—if it comes to Ministers—will relate to what is in the best interests of patients.

Mr. Woodward: The Minister makes much of the importance of public consultation. In Oxfordshire, the community health trust has presented two options for the future of community hospitals. Option one is the closure of Burford community hospital; option two is the closure of Burford community hospital. Will the Minister explain just what public consultation means, when both options mean that the hospital is faced with closure?

Mr. Milburn: I will not be drawn into a detailed commentary on each and every consultation that is going on. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well why that is the case. If a local community health council objects to any of the proposals, the objection will end up on my desk, but until it ends up on my desk I must retain a sense of objectivity and impartiality.

Mr. Lock: Community hospitals are important, but in many areas—such as Kidderminster, in my constituency—people are desperate for their general hospitals not to be downgraded to the status of community hospital. Does my hon. Friend understand the strong feelings in Kidderminster about the proposal for the hospital—just before receiving its charter mark—to be reduced to a hospital of 35 beds, one for every 2,600 people, as opposed to the one bed for every 160 people that there is in Evesham? Will he assure the House that, as far as he is concerned, all options will remain open until and unless the matter comes to his desk?

Mr. Milburn: Of course I am aware of my hon. Friend's concerns. He and his colleagues have been to see me about the health authority's consultation proposals. During any consultation, I shall expect to see a full appraisal of the preferred option of the health authority, but it will be open to local communities and their representatives to make representations to the health authority about other options. The health authority will be expected to examine those options—as, indeed, I would, if they came to me.

Mr. Luff: The Minister, who is taking a very fair approach, will recognise that Evesham community hospital serves not just Evesham, but the whole of south Worcestershire. Many people from Worcester, for example, go into Evesham for rehabilitation.

Mr. Milburn: I am aware of the local position. I know that a number of community hospitals serve a number of communities in the Worcestershire health authority area. I also know of the concern in the areas that could be affected if option seven were given the go-ahead. Equally, I am concerned about the anxieties that have been expressed to me by those in Kidderminster and other parts of the county.
These are clearly difficult issues, which will need to be considered carefully. That is why it is important for the health authority to do everything in its power to ensure that there is a full and open debate about the issues during the next few months. I know that the health authority is promoting that consultation through a number of public meetings. I understand that it has also established a freephone helpline and a website. Moreover, views can be sent to the health authority by freepost.
Let me tell hon. Members on both sides of the House that, when difficult decisions must be made, it is important for those representing local communities in all parts of the area covered by the Worcestershire health authority to submit their views. I assure hon. Members

that their views will be properly considered by health authorities. Views that are brought to me will also be properly considered.

Sir Michael Spicer: Do the Government have a policy on distinguishing between community hospitals and their development and the old-fashioned district general hospitals?

Mr. Milburn: I am coming to that, and trying to go beyond the boundaries of Worcestershire.

Mr. Michael J. Foster: Before my hon. Friend leaves Worcestershire, perhaps I could ask whether he agrees that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when Leader of the Opposition, at no time visited Worcester to make the great electoral pledge that we have heard about. Does he further agree that the new hospital that is planned for Worcester springs from medical necessity, and is not the result of some sort of electoral deal?

Mr. Milburn: One of my most pleasing actions as a Health Minister was to give the go-ahead to some new hospitals. I am surprised that some Opposition Members seem to oppose that. I thought that new hospitals were welcome in the national health service. That is certainly what some Opposition Members call for.
The value of community hospitals was recently emphasised in the White Paper that sets out how new primary care trusts will be able to take over the running of community hospitals and other community services to provide a broad range of treatment and care. Precise arrangements will depend on local circumstances, but it is envisaged that, in time, the primary care trust will employ all relevant community health staff and run community hospitals and other community facilities to provide an integrated system of primary and community care. That will allow patients access to an integrated service.
Under the White Paper proposals, primary care groups and trusts will be a focus for better integrating primary and community care services. Clinicians in primary and secondary care will together be able to set quality standards and service protocols so that the patient receives properly integrated programmes of care. By integrating primary care and community health care, we shall bring together health care professionals with many and varied complementary skills. The sharing of skills and expertise in that way will create greater flexibility in the provision of health care services, and will allow general practitioners to use their time more effectively to provide a better service to patients.

Mr. John Burnett: Are the Government considering changing the appeals procedure for rural community hospitals to match the one that was announced on Friday for rural primary schools, so that there will be a presumption against closure, and a decision to close will have to be referred to the Secretary of State?

Mr. Milburn: I assure the hon. Gentleman that, in some parts of the country—in rural areas, for example—community hospitals may have an important future role. It is a question of horses for courses. We certainly do not have a single national blueprint that can be applied to all areas. There are differences between


rural and urban areas, but not all rural areas are the same. We must have a system that allows proper inspection and an analysis of what is needed in each area.
I hope that all hon. Members share our aim of achieving services that are better attuned to local health needs. The consultations that are going on in Worcestershire and in other areas will allow us to do precisely that.

Mr. John Hayes: In south Lincolnshire, where we face problems similar to those that have been mentioned, the issue is sparsity. The Minister says that different solutions must be applied to different areas. Can he assure us that sparsity will be fully taken into account? It may not always have been fully considered in the past—I do not seek to make a party political point—but can he assure the House and those in rural areas, many of which are represented in the Chamber for the debate, that it will be considered in future?

Mr. Milburn: We must take into account whether any change in local health services will improve care for patients—that is the bottom line, the barometer and the yardstick against which any change or reconfiguration proposal should be judged. There is no exception for community hospitals.
As the hon. Member for West Worcestershire rightly said, with such wide variations in the types of service provided by community hospitals, it would be wrong to

attempt to impose a national blueprint from the centre. The centre's role is not to be prescriptive, but to establish clear national standards to help local planners develop services that best meet local needs. As I have said several times, all districts are different, and all have differing needs. The range of services they commission and the various unit types must be determined locally, and by much more than only physical environments.
We want—more importantly, local people in all parts of the United Kingdom want—local services that best meet their local health needs. As I said, there are many possible models for community hospitals, and a variety of factors will determine the right model to suit local circumstances.
A modern national health service—which is what we want—is one that provides high-quality and appropriate services, and has a capital and staff infrastructure that is capable of delivering those services to meet patients' needs in the 21st century. However, no part of health care stands alone: it is an interconnected system, between primary, community and acute services. It simply is not possible artificially to separate one service from another. In all parts of the United Kingdom, we need to give proper consideration to ensuring that the nature of local health services in totality better meets local health needs.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Twelve midnight.